Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London County Council (Ilford and Barking Drainage) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a second time.

Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords], (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,—read the third time, and passed.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I desire to call attention to the unusual procedure adopted yesterday by the Chairman of Standing Committee A, which is dealing with the Racecourse Betting Bill, in that he (1) waited from 2 to 2.45 p.m. for a quorum; (2) allowed a second vote on the Motion for the Closure, which was carried in the middle of Debate, when a few minutes before he had already accepted a similar Motion on the same point and had declared it lost; (3) convened the Committee at the unusual hour of 9.45 p.m., and kept the proceed-
ings going till 11.40 p.m., when the House of Commons itself concluded its business at 11.10; and to ask whether steps can be taken to prevent a repetition of such action by the Chairman?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Chairman in question has had notice of this question?

Mr. DAVIES: I ought to explain that it was very late last night when we concluded our business, and that I indicated, I think, once or twice in my speeches in the Committee that I intended raising the whole conduct of the Chairman in the House of Commons at the first opportunity. I have not been able to see him this morning, and I am sorry for that.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this question, of which the hon. Member has been kind enough to give me notice, I should like to lay down an emphatic Ruling that there is no appeal from the Chairman of a Committee to Mr. Speaker; and, in the second place, that, if any Member or group of Members have any criticism to make of the Chairman of a Committee, or, indeed, of anyone in the Chair, the proper thing to do is to put down a Motion on the Paper, so that it may be discussed in the ordinary way in the House.

Mr. DAVIES: Following up that point, may I ask whether it is competent, therefore, for a Member who is dissatisfied with the conduct of the Chair not only to put a Motion down in the way that you indicate, but to question the title of an hon. Member of the House who is backing a certain Bill to take the Chair on that Bill in Standing Committee? Could the Motion include a point of that kind?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be sorry to give any Ruling on the last question that the hon. Member has raised; that is an entirely new point to me.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: On the point of Order. Without dealing at all with the question of appeal from the Chairman of a Committee to yourself, would it not be within your power to take action if the Rules of the House governing Standing Committees, as stated in Paragraph 76 of the Manual of Procedure, were in your
opinion flagrantly broken in the conduct of the proceedings of the Committee? Paragraph 76 refers to the times during which a Committee may sit, and relates those times to the times of meeting of the House. Do not the times of meeting of the House come entirely within your supervision, and would it not, therefore, be right for you to express an opinion regarding the holding of a Committee meeting after the House had closed its ordinary sitting?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of the Standing Orders is one entirely for the House. If it be considered that the Chairman has too much power, a Motion can be put down to amend the Standing Order. It is not in my power, if any complaint be made against the Chairman of a Committee, to give a Ruling; there is no appeal from the Chairman to me.

Mr. HUDSON: With great respect, my point was that there is a breach, as it would seem to me, of the privileges of the House as a whole, over which you preside and of whose rights you are the guardian. Paragraph 76 states what is to be the time of a Standing Committee's meeting, and relates that time to the Order of the House itself. It says that:
A Standing Committee may sit whilst the House is sitting, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: "Notwithstanding any adjournment of the House."

Mr. HUDSON: "Whilst the House is sitting."

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see that anything can be done under the Standing Order in question, but, as I said before, if it be considered that there is a subject of complaint, a Motion can be put down in criticism of the Chairman.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: May I ask if your general Ruling on this matter covers the first supplementary question put to you? May I ask if you are aware that the Chairman of Standing Committee A, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton), is one of the promoters of this Bill; and may I ask if you will be good enough to take that matter into account in order to find, possibly, an explanation of the unusual manner in which the proceedings of this Committee are being conducted?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. May I mention that that particular point was raised before the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) took the Chair, and it was agreed by all parties that it would be perfectly in order for him to take the Chair?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. KENNEDY: On the assumption, as I understand it, that the proceedings of this Committee were to be conducted in a normal way.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The suggestion has been made, by the point of Order raised by the Opposition, that something unusual or incorrect has been done by the Chairman of Standing Committee A. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Surely, it is fair to say that the fact of an hon. Member's name being on the back of a Bill has no more reference to his impartiality than the name of any hon. Member who voted either for or against the Bill in question would have to his impartiality. It is impossible, as it seems to me, to suggest impartiality, and partiality too, merely because a Member's name is on the back of a Bill. The whole essence of the House of Commons falls to the ground if suggestions of that sort are going to be made.

Mr. BARR: In reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville), I would just like to say that that question was never raised in any formal way, and, so far as individuals were aware of it, and, so far as I was aware of it, we thought it would be improper for us to raise the question, in the hope and expectancy that the conduct of affairs might be such that we should never feel bound in any way to refer to it at all. It is only because of the course of the discussions that that matter has been mentioned later.

Mr. LAMB: On a point of Order. A Ruling having been given by you from the Chair that this matter can only be discussed on a Motion, and a Motion not having been made, am I not right in saying that the whole of the discussion at the present time is out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was just going to say that the discussion which has taken place only emphasises how necessary it
is, on questions of this kind, to put down a Motion for discussion in the House.

Mr. MACKINDER: I understand from your Ruling that, if the Chairman of the Committee did exceed what the Standing Order allows in continuing the meeting of the Committee after the House had risen, the only alternative course is to put down a Motion condemning the Chairman of the Committee. May I ask what would be the position in the event of the House deciding that the Chairman had acted wrongly? Would the proceedings of that Committee be ultra vires?

Mr. SPEAKER: I can but repeat what I have said previously, that there is no appeal from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker, and that being so, it is not for me to express any opinion upon it.

Mr. STEWART: If the Chairman of the Committee decides in any way whatever, are we to understand your Ruling is that, no matter how contrary it may be to the Rules of Procedure of the House, the only redress open to Members of the Committee who may feel aggrieved with regard to his action is to put down a Motion condemning that Chairman in this House and that, while we are in Committee, however autocratic, however unfair, however contrary to precedent or the Rules of the House his action is, we have absolutely no redress? Is that your Ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Ruling I have given, repeated several times, is that there is no appeal as to the action of the Chairman of the Committee to the Speaker.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I raise a different point. I put it to you, Sir, that when you adjourn this House at the end of a Sitting that has certain effects on the organisation of the House, the lighting, the police arrangements, the arrangements of the Kitchen Committee, and so on, and therefore the executive act of adjourning the House from the Chair has very important effects on the state of the House generally. I put it to you that this matter requires consideration from the point of view of the House as a whole. We might have this House rising at Eleven o'clock and a
Standing Committee remaining in Session all night, with the whole staff of messengers, police, catering staff, and so on on duty automatically, even although you yourself have declared the House adjourned. I suggest that will require some consideration from the House of Commons point of view.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order reads like this:
All Committees shall have leave to sit, except while the House is at prayers, during the sitting, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Does that mean that a Chairman of Committees can call a meeting whenever he likes, on a Saturday or a Sunday when the House has been adjourned? This is an entirely fresh point.

Commander WILLIAMS: This Committee tried to sit while the House was at prayers.

Mr. COMPTON: Surely the Rule is more honoured in the breach than is the observance that a Standing Committee shall not sit while the House is at prayers. Committees are sitting every day when the House is at prayers. What we are concerned with is sitting all night when the House is not sitting.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only cite the Standing Order on this point.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Port of London Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Rear-Admiral Beamish, Mr. Hanbury, and Major McLean; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Walter de Frece, Sir James Grant, and Mr. Grotrian.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Rubber Industry Bill): Sir Henry Buckingham; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Bertram Falle.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amended definition of shop assistant.)

"The following shall be substituted for the definition of 'shop assistant' contained in section nineteen of the principal Act:
The expression 'shop assistant' means any person wholly or mainly employed in connection with any shop for the serving of customers or the receipt of orders, or the collection, warehousing, despatch or delivery of goods, or in any clerical capacity, but shall not include any person solely employed outside the shop for the purposes of delivering or collecting goods"—[Miss Bondfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We on this side are most anxious to secure the Third Heading of this Bill and the Amendments that will be brought forward are intended to clarify points which are still in doubt. One of the doubts we very much want to clarify is the definition of shop assistants under the 1912 Act. That definition reads as follows:
The expression 'shop assistant' means any person wholly or mainly employed in a shop in connection with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders or the despatch of goods.
The change we desire to make takes the form of following up the immense development which has taken place in the distributive trades since the 1912 Act was passed. We have seen the growth of departmental stores, where the despatch of collection of goods has become a very considerable business, which has grown with the growth of the amalgamation of businesses until it assumes a very large share of the time taken up by what may quite properly be described as shop assistants. We want, therefore, to have words accepted which will include this immense business and include all the operations which take place in the interior of a shop. We have no desire whatever to widen the scope of the definition to include those people who are engaged in the outside work of the
shop and the delivering of goods to customers. We who are connected with the trade and know the internal working of a great business realise that the intention of the fair employer is to close his shop and let his assistants go at the proper time, but he has always to contend against the unfair man who is looking for a loophole so that he can unfairly compete with those who are carrying out the law. It is for the purpose of stopping up this gap that we ask the House to include this wider definition of shop assistants.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Motion. The Clause does not cover all we should like to cover. The last two and a half lines are opening the door to employers to send goods out at any time after their shops are closed. We have been fighting that for a great number of years, and in many instances we have been able to get the concession that goods should not be sent away after the shops and warehouses are closed. We contend that the hours the servants have to work prior to the shops closing are quite long enough for anyone. They often extend to 10 and 12 hours, because it is necessary in many instances for some of the goods to be fetched from railways and docks, and men have to start out fairly early to collect them. I have at times had to go to the docks, and even to wait for goods to be transferred from the ship so the warehouse before I could get them, and many hundreds of others are doing the same. I do not see why we should ask for a privilege to be given to the employers to send out goods after the shops are closed at night. If we cannot get it through Act of Parliament we shall have to get it by organisation, and there is the possibility that if we can get some reasonable consideration given to those employed in shops, warehouses and stores, we shall be able to get some more consideration for the men who are out at night delivering goods. I think that we ought to have a proper definition placed in this Measure as to whom it is to apply.
If this Clause be accepted, and I hope it will be, it certainly will help to reduce the number of hours of certain people who have to work after the shops are closed, because the shops will be closed earlier than is the case at the
present time. The fact that shop assistants and clerks and warehousemen attached to shops, making out the accounts and making up the parcels for the delivery men will cease work earlier, naturally will help to curtail the hours of other men who are going broadcast through the streets of London and the suburbs delivering goods. Therefore, if we are unable to get all that we desire so as to ensure that those engaged in the delivery of goods shall be finished at the same time as those engaged in the warehouses or shops, we wish to accept the next best thing, and this Clause helps to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to delay the House for more than a moment or two, bearing in mind the promise that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office when the Bill was in Committee. He made a promise that between then and the Report stage, he would attempt to try and secure a re-definition of the meaning of "shop assistants." We were hopeful, of course, that a suitable definition would have been placed on the Order Paper prior to the Report stage. As we have no desire to prolong discussion in this matter, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or his hon. and gallant Friend, would tell us exactly what is in the mind of the Home Office, it might be that we could reach a decision very early on the points submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield). My hon. Friend seems to have covered practically the whole of the ground and has made all the submissions that we desire, and, if the Home Secretary will tell us why his department have not made a re-definition or will say what he intends to do, we shall be happy to listen to him.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I was on the point of rising before, but I saw that the hon. Gentleman desired to speak and, I hope with my usual courtesy, I gave way to him. I should like to say at once that we have considered—that I have personally considered—this new Clause, and I am afraid that it is such an enlargement of the main Act that it could not possibly be allowed to go through without further
consideration and the assistance of those outside bodies who are interested in the matter. When the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) read the new Clause she said that down to a certain word was the old Clause. She omitted the final words of the old Clause which deal with the despatch of goods. The words in the existing Clause—the Clause as it now stands—are:
shop assistant means any person wholly or mainly employed in a shop in connection with the serving of customers, or the receipt of orders, or the despatch of goods.

Miss BONDFIELD: I was anxious to show that there was so little change in my new Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March), who seconded the Clause, extended it very much further, and desired to include the case of men working outside delivering goods. Really, the object of this Bill is to deal with the earlier closing of shops. I can quite understand when a shop assistant or a shop-keeper has been engaged all day long selling numerous goods, all of which have to be sent away——

Mr. MARCH: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that this did not go far enough to suit those who are out delivering goods, and that as we could not get all that we wanted we welcomed the proposed Clause, which goes part of the way.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It shows how far the hon. Gentleman desires to go if I let him have his way. If he gets this, he will come along to-morrow for a little more. Let me make my point quite clear I am not asking that delivery men engaged on vans should have to work 12, 14 or 15 hours a day—nothing of the kind—but I am saying, quite definitely, that in the public interest it may be desirable that work on the vans should go on after the shop has been closed. That can be got over by the men who have to do the delivery work coming on duty later in the day. After all, the House will realise that the keeper of the shop is really the servant of the public, and when goods are sold up to 8 o'clock at night it is in the interests of the public and the consumer that those deliveries should be made as rapidly as possible. I really think that the Section of the original Act of 1912 has worked
very well so far. It deals with the serving of customers, the receipt of orders, or the despatch of goods by people inside the shops. The people outside the shop, and the people in warehouses, and those engaged in delivery are a different class of people from the shop-assistants. They will work their own hours. Arrangements may be made between employers and various trade unions connected with warehousemen and others to enable them to begin their work later in the day.
These Acts are for the protection of a body of people who would not be able without these Acts to protect themselves. They have worked exceedingly well so far, and by this Measure we are making these temporary provisions—I am sure the whole House will agree with them—permanent for the first time. We are embodying them in an Act of Parliament so as to make them permanent throughout the land. I want to get this Bill through. I am very anxious about it, but I do not want hon. Members to press me to-day to extend it further, as this new clause would extend it. I think that it is outside the purview of this Measure, which deals with the closing of shops, to include other ancilliary businesses like warehousing and cartage, and so forth. That being so, I hone hon. Members will not press the new Clause.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: I want to thank the Home Secretary for putting before the House very clearly the true aspect of this proposed new Clause. It is the intention of the mover and supporters of this Clause to bring within the scope of the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, men engaged outside the shops who are not really shop assistants. I venture to tell the Committee that the definition in the original Act of 1912 is quite clear and covers actually what is intended by everybody engaged in shop life. The sting of this new Clause is really in the tail, because it says it:
shall not include any person solely employed outside the shop for the purposes of delivering or collecting goods.
If that were passed, it would mean that the public would be greatly inconvenienced. I speak as a trader and not from second-hand knowledge. It is the common practice of members of the public—and we have to serve the public in this matter—to come in to a shop very late, and sometimes a customer will say:
"I want this bed sent home as I have a visitor or a sick person." The trader has to oblige the customer and send someone to deliver the bed to the house. A large shopkeeper can keep men solely engaged upon outside work, and others solely engaged upon inside work, but the small shopkeeper who has to employ a man to work outside, and sometimes to assist inside would not be allowed to meet the situation, because such a man would not be solely employed in the work of delivery outside the premises. It would mean considerable inconvenience in the case of emergency in the borderline cases, which the general public would not desire. Speaking as a trader, I know that many members of the public, and particularly the working classes, leave their shopping to the last minute and are very much offended if the trader cannot oblige them, and do what they desire. If we rope in the trading community and restrict, or attempt to restrict, every effort they make to oblige the public, we shall be doing something which is not in the interests of the general community. It is not purely in the interests of the trader; we have to consider the purchaser equally with the trader. I suggest that the provision in the original Act of 1912 meets all the requirements. If we are going to incorporate in a Bill which is promoted for another purpose a Clause amending the original Act, it would be most unfortunate.

Miss BONDFIELD: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would point out that the debate has switched the discussion far beyond the proposed new Clause. I regret that, because it was a perfectly genuine desire to get the Clause clarified in the Act of 1912. It was not intended to widen the scope in the way that has been suggested.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provisions as to newspapers in certain districts.)

If a local authority are of opinion that by reason of the lateness of the hour at which daily newspapers are received in their area or in any part thereof there is not reasonably sufficient time for sale of such newspapers in shops before the general closing
hours fixed by this Act they may by order substitute for the said general closing hours such later hours, as they think fit, as respects the sale of daily newspapers in shops in their area or in that part thereof, but a local authority shall not make an order under this section unless they are satisfied that such an order is desired by the occupiers of at last two-thirds in number of the shops to be thereby affected.—[Mr. Womersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In explaining this proposed new Clause I must refer to the First Schedule of the Bill, "Transactions not prevented by this Act or by Closing Orders made under the Principal Act." I must also ask hon. Members to refer to paragraph "g" of the First Schedule, which reads:
newspapers, periodicals and books from the book-stalls of such terminal and main-line stations as may be approved by the Secretary of State.
That gives the Secretary of State power to approve the sale of newspapers at railway bookstalls after the ordinary shop closing hours, where he is satisfied that they cannot receive the evening newspapers in time for sale before the closing hour. I am moving this new Clause on behalf of a large body of small traders belonging to the Newsagents' Association, who feel that if this permission is to be given by the Secretary of State in respect of certain railway bookstalls it ought to be possible for the same privilege to be accorded to the small newsagent who has to earn his living in the same district in which the railway terminus is situated. It is necessary that these men should have some opportunity of trading in this way, because there are certain remote parts of the country where it is absolutely impossible to get the late edition of the evening newspaper from the town where it is printed to those districts before the closing hour of 8 o'clock.
I might quote my own county of Lincoln. The last edition of the newspaper printed at Lincoln cannot reach the town of Louth before 8.15. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is an evening newspaper." The new Clause says "daily."] The term "daily" does not necessarily apply to a morning newspaper; it has to be put in the Clause in that form in order to pass the eye of the examiner of Amendments to Bills. In my own town of Grimsby we have a very highly influential and spleen-
did newspaper published in the evening—a newspaper of which I am very proud, which circulates in the remote districts of North and mid-Lincolnshire—but it is impossible for the late edition of that newspaper to reach those who sell it in the outlying districts in time for sale before the hours of closing. Take the East Riding of Yorkshire and the important city of Hull. It is impossible to get the latest edition of the Hull evening newspaper, also a very important evening newspaper, in the town of Bridlington before 8.12 p.m. All that I am asking is that the local authorities shall be given power to take these circumstances into consideration and if they feel satisfied that there is a two-thirds majority of those engaged in the business who desire that they shall be allowed to keep open a little later in order that they can sell these evening newspapers, and thereby compete on equal terms with the railway bookstalls, they would be able to put the Clause into operation. It is only fair to the small traders that this should be done. It is only putting them on a line with the big bookstall firms, and I ask the House to agree to the new Clause.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I beg to second the Motion. It is not so much a question of the terminal and main line station bookstalls. My experience is that in the large towns the sale of evening newspapers has practically finished by 7.30 p.m. Very few evening newspapers have any editions which go to press after 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m., but it is the outlying country districts where there are no main line stations and there is not a big town, for which we desire to cater by this new Clause. Unless something of this sort is provided, many of these country districts will be left without late editions of the evening newspapers. That would be a hardship. I hope that the new Clause will be accepted.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope the Home Secretary will take the same course with regard to this new Clause that he did in regard to the other. Let me give a few reasons why the House ought to reject this new Clause. If hon. Members will turn to the Report of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the subject they will find this sentence in regard to newspapers:
We have carefully considered all the evidence presented to us…and we recom-
mend that the sale of newspapers in shops should be subject to the general public closing provisions but that their sale in any place not being a shop should be exempted.
That is in the Report of the Departmental Committee which received evidence in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). The hon. Member is endeavouring to take advantage of one concession already granted in the Bill. The trouble in regard to concessions is that everybody else is jealous of the concession already granted. The concession that has already been granted relates to station bookstalls, and because station bookstalls are to be authorised by the right hon. Gentleman to sell newspapers after the closing hour these small retail newsagents come along and say, "The bookstall at the station is in competition with us." If we proceed on these lines we shall never end the concessions and we should be back again where we were prior to the War. The local authority, under this Clause, would be able to decide, not simply on the question of competition between a station bookstall and the retail newsagents, but a majority of two-thirds of the retail newsagents could convince the local authority, whether there exists a station bookstall or not in the place, that this concession should be granted. A local authority under this new Clause, irrespective of the station bookstall, would have the right to declare any hour for the sale of newspapers. The hon. Member for Grimsby mentioned the case of evening newspapers. If he will further analyse the effect of his proposal he will understand that the situation would be impossible. There are newspapers published at six o'clock in the evening, and if you are going to give retail newsagents the right to open in all parts of the country until the six o'clock edition of the London newspapers reach their destination they will have to keep open until midnight. The evening editions of the London newspapers do not reach Manchester until ten o'clock—and Manchester people do not want London evening newspapers at all. The Clause is absolutely impossible. If we make one concession after another the Bill will be absolutely a farce. I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the proposal.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Let me deal with the last point made by the hon. Member
for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with regard to evening newspapers which he said would not reach their destination until midnight. In that case you would not get a majority of two-thirds of the local newsagents asking to be allowed to keep open for the sale of newspapers until midnight. I do not think that is a very potent argument. I quite agree that the question of the sale of newspapers is a very difficult point. A body representing the vast majority of newsagents in this country came before the Committee and asked that they should be deprived of the privilege they had under the Act of 1920 of selling newspapers up to any hour. I look sometimes with a little suspicion on bodies who say they represent all the traders in a particular trade, but in this case it was evident that these people did represent the views of the vast majority and not merely a few influential concerns. I was present last year at the annual dinner of the Newsagents' Society, and I could see that there was a very strong feeling in favour of closing at eight o'clock.
I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) should bring forward this new Clause. I am certain he has not done so without making careful inquiries and finding out that there are a number of newsagents who want this concession. If there are in some country districts a number of newsagents who desire to sell newspapers arriving after eight o'clock there can be no harm in that if the newsagents themselves express a desire to be able to do so. It is undoubtedly the fact that you cannot get an evening paper at all, especially what is called the "Late Special," in country places until after eight o'clock, and if shopkeepers, by a clear majority, say that they can do a little bit of business by selling these newspapers after eight o'clock I cannot see why this House should deprive them of the opportunity. Therefore, on balance I do not think we should be vitiating or detracting from the Report of the Committee if we pass this new Clause, which only gives power to shops to open after eight o'clock after a two-thirds majority of the people concerned have expressed a desire to do so.

Mr. NAYLOR: I must cross swords at once with the hon. Member for West-
houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) when he says that London newspapers are not wanted in Manchester, whether they are morning or evening newspapers. I can assure him that there is a great demand for London newspapers, morning and evening, all over the country, and even in Scotland. I rise not to support the Amendment, but to oppose it. Although I should like to see every reasonable facility given to newspapers of the country for sale I do not think the hon. Member has made out his case. One would suppose that he would have given some evidence that newspaper proprietors were unable to reach these country districts at an earlier hour. It is quite easy for any newspaper proprietor, if he finds that the newsagent in a particular district of the country is not able to secure his copies of the newspaper before the hour of closing, to arrange for the paper to be printed and issued at such a time as will enable it to be on sale in this particular district within the reasonable hours provided by the present legislation.
The House will be making a mistake if it accepts this Amendment. I do not think readers of evening papers are so interested in the latest editions that they want to sit up late at night in order to read it. They are content to wait until the morning to find out what has taken place in the afternoon of the day before, and it would not be fair to introduce a new Clause like this, which will have the effect of enabling these newsagents in every town, irrespective of the difficulty of obtaining newspapers before the hour of closing, to get a plebiscite of the newsagents in the locality merely for the purpose of securing the right of selling newspapers after the hour of closing. It is quite easy in some of these remote country districts to arrange for the sale of newspapers outside the shops. There are no restrictions in that case. If there is any real demand for newspapers the man in the street would undoubtedly sell them. No case has been made out for this rather drastic exception in the Bill, and I trust the House will be very careful before it accepts the proposal.

Sir GEORGE HUME: When this matter was considered by the Committee a very careful balance was taken between
concessions on the one hand and permissions on the other, and I hope we shall not enlarge on the recommendations of the Committee in the direction desired, because I feel that demands are going to be made in other directions. This question of newspapers was really very carefully considered, and the feeling of the Committee was that it was extremely undesirable that shops should have any opportunity of opening later and that if newspapers had to be sold after closing hours that they should be permitted to be sold in the streets. The House should be very careful before it makes this concession. It may be a small one, but it is only opening the door to further pressure which may come from rather more influential sources.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This new Clause provides considerable food for thought In the first place, I think the House should realise that the Bill does alter the general law. At the present time newspapers are exempt from the law with regard to the closing of shops. I have read the new Clause very carefully, and as far as I can see it is of a very mild character. First of all the local authority has to decide, before any newspaper shop can remain open, that by reason of the lateness of the hour at which daily newspapers are received in an area, there is not sufficient time for the sale of such newspaper. I doubt very much whether there will be any areas where they cannot get the "Daily Herald" in time to have it sold before 8 o'clock at night. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who moved the new Clause moved it in the interests of the "Daily Herald" or not. I want to be equally fair to all newspapers. At all events, that is the first fence that anyone has to get over before getting this exemption.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member expressly said that the word "daily" in this case included evening newspapers. That is the danger of it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I suppose it does mean a newspaper published in the day time, from early morn to dewy eve, even the "Daily Herald" if it should publish an evening addition, which God forbid! The second fence which has to be got over is that the local authority cannot make this order unless satisfied that two-thirds of the shop-
keepers who would be affected are in favour of it. I think that the House, before coming to a decision, should see the smallness of the points that are included in this new Clause. AS far as I and the Government are concerned, this is pre-eminently a matter which might be left to the decision of the House. There are certain points in the Bill in regard to which the Government must express definite opinions from time to time, for I want so to guide and control the House that, when the Bill passes, it is a workable Measure that will inure to the advantage of the shopkeeping and shop assistant class. Having pointed out the very small points affected by the new Clause, I suggest that the House should come to a decision as soon as possible and get on to more important points.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: One is very much surprised at the attitude of the Home Secretary. I should have thought, judging by the practice of Ministers of the Crown in the present Parliament, that he would have been much more concerned to defend the decision arrived at by the Departmental Committee which he appointed. In the last three years we have had under consideration many matters which have resulted from the recommendations of Departmental Committees, and I cannot recall a single case in which the Minister has adopted quite the attitude that the Home Secretary has adopted this morning. I am not saying that he is not entitled to adopt it. His reference to the "Daily Herald" really had nothing to do with this Clause.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree.

Mr. ALEXANDER: But we welcome the very great tribute which has been paid by the Home Secretary to the efficacy of the "Daily Herald" from a particular point of view, for he said, "God forbid that there should ever be an evening addition of the Labour paper."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was thinking of sporting news.

12 n.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not a sporting man myself, I do not follow the course of the racehorses. But I have never heard yet that the sporting news of the "Daily Herald" is any Jess reliable than that of journals in which the Home Secretary achieves such popularity and publicity.
It is quite evident that the Home Secretary is anxious that there should not be an evening edition of a Labour newspaper, and for obvious reasons. I am also surprised that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) should have adopted the attitude that he did, because he did a great deal of work on the Committee and signed a report which in my judgment was against the adoption of a new Clause of this kind. The passing of this Clause would lead to very great difficulty in each locality where a local authority could be persuaded by the trade to adopt a by-law as defined in the Clause. If you have a shop open to very late hours for the purposes of the Clause, you will very much increase the difficulties of the local authority in regard to inspection and supervision.
Newsagents deal in a very large number of commodities and if the shop is to be kept open for the sale of newspapers, it is certain that there will be a demand from the unthinking public, when they enter the shop, for other commodities which are stocked not only by the newsagents but also by large numbers of other traders who do not sell newspapers and have perforce to adopt an earlier closing hour. Moreover, many of these other shopkeepers are very often in a large way of business. They have very good trade union conditions and are anxious not to get behind those conditions. On the other hand a very large number of newsagents are not adopting trade union conditions. If the Home Secretary allows this Clause to go forward, he will increase rather than decrease the trouble of distributive labour. We pass Act after Act which increases the duties and responsibilities of local authorities. We cannot possibly make this Clause work fairly as between all the other classes of tradesmen affected by the commodities which are stocked in newagents' shops, unless the local authority increases its inspectorial staff and takes steps to ensure that nothing but newspapers is sold during the extension hours. That is not a position in which this House should allow a Bill to pass.
The Clause would confer a special favour upon a body of retail traders who are already specially favoured. The Home Secretary does not seem to remember that the newsagents have created almost a monopoly in that type of busi-
ness. I expect that he is aware, because of his legal qualifications and great experience, that a case has been tried in the Courts between the newsagents and the proprietor of certain newspapers, to the effect that they are entitled to restrain the newspaper proprietor from supplying newspapers or periodicals for sale by anyone of whom the newsagents do not approve. No newsagent can open a shop in that particular district now, except with the permission of this body. They are therefore, actually setting up a monopoly in regard to this class of business.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Member aware that it is not a wealthy body but is composed of men of very small means and is a registered trade union, No. 1770?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That does not alter what I am saying. I am dealing with a legal decision which has been recorded as a result of an action taken by the newsagents, which action confers a monopoly upon them with regard to the supply of newspapers and periodicals. Are we going to ask the House to confer a still further favour on these people on top of the monopoly which they have secured by an injunction in the Courts? I believe such a course would be foreign to the desires of Members of the House. I regard this Clause as reactionary and unworkable and I hope the House will decline to assent to it.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I do not think that the opponents of this Measure have been quite fair to the country districts. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and another hon. Member suggested the possibility of distributing these papers in country areas by getting out earlier editions, but, if they look at the map, they will see that in some places there are very few railways, and in such districts it would be almost impossible to have the newspapers distributed at a reasonable hour even with earlier editions. Other hon. Members have spoken as though it were possible to obtain the newspapers from railway bookstalls, but in some parts of the country railway bookstalls are 40 miles or more apart, and therefore, as a means of distribution, they must be ruled out. I hope the opponents of the Measure will
think of the country districts and not only of the towns, and I hope that the proposed new Clause will be accepted.

Mr. MONTAGUE: We on this side are very much concerned that this Measure should have some sort of stability and consistency. We do not want to see a Measure of a sieve-like character, and that is the principal reason why we oppose the proposed New Clause. We are further opposed to it on the ground that it would confer upon a certain body of tradesmen privileges for which they are not asking, and I do not think the House ought to go out of its way to do that. A considerable amount of nonsense has been talked about the benefit to the public in this matter. I fail to see the difference in relation to public advantage, between the sale of newspapers and the sale of any other kind of commodity. It is a question of supplying the needs of the public.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Would the hon. Member say that about the "Social Democrat," to which I am a regular subscriber?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Indeed I would. People who take the "Social Democrat" are sensible enough not to sit up half the night in order to read it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It is the finest cure for insomnia that I have ever had.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am pleased to know, at any rate, that the hon. Gentleman does read the "Social Democrat." The point is that this Bill must not be allowed to become merely a sieve through which all kinds of exceptions can pass. When I was abroad during the War, I got my favourite daily newspaper regularly, but always a week late. That made no difference to me. The papers came day by day in exactly the same order as they would come to me at home, and the difference of seven days in the time was never considered by me. I had the same advantage and the same pleasure in reading the papers. Surely the people who are far away from the towns can very easily and reasonably wait until the following morning for the day's news. If we are asked to incorporate this proposal in the Measure on the ground that newsagents have arrived at a certain decision by a majority, then I suggest that it would be desirable also to take the views
of the shop assistants and to poll them on the question. I speak with some feeling, because I had 11 years' experience of shop life. I worked 15 hours a day, and I think 12 hours a day is quite long enough for a shop to be open. It is said that news is to be regarded as a kind of public entertainment—something like the supply of intoxicating liquor or cinemas or theatres. In that case the argument should not be for closing the shops at any particular time, but for limiting the hours of assistants in shops and everywhere else. Let us be consistent, however, and, if we are going to deal with this question from the standpoint of the hours at which the shop should be open, then I see no reason for making an exception of the kind proposed in the new Clause.

Captain GUNSTON: I would like to pay my tribute to the "Daily Herald" because I am told by my sporting friends that its sporting news is excellent and I gather that the same remark applies to its Stock Exchange tips. I must say that on this point I agree with hon. Members opposite. I have lived in country districts and it is quite true that the people in country districts are very anxious to get the news of the day. As against that circumstance we have to place the convenience of the people who work in shops. Some years ago there would have been a good deal to be said for this New Clause, but, today, practically every country cottage has its wireless installation and the news can be got in that way. It is possibly true that it is not as interestingly or as well dished up as it would be in the evening papers, but, while the news is available, there is not any hardship to the public if the papers are not available in the remoter country districts. I think it would be a dangerous thing if we passed this New Clause.

Mr. MORRIS: This class of legislation illustrates the difficulty of dealing with these subjects fairly. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) objects to the New Clause on the ground that it works an injustice and involves the employment of additional officials by local authorities in order to see that a shopkeeper does not sell commodities other than newspapers. On the other hand, if the Bill were to
pass without this New Clause it would work injustice as between district and district. In my own division, there is one town, Aberystwyth, where the evening newspapers come in at 8.15 p.m. That means that no evening newspaper can be sold there, except with the leave of the Home Secretary. They may be hawked about the streets but no shopkeeper could sell them, whereas those papers can be sold in shops in other towns. That illustrates the difficulty of legislating in regard to shop hours, on the basis of closing the shops at a certain fixed hour. It would be much better if it were possible to legislate so as to secure certain hours of work for the shop assistants. That is the proper basis. I have never yet been able to understand why we should tell a man that he must close his own shop at a certain specified hour, even if he is prepared to work longer. I have never understood that point of view. If a man is prepared to keep his shop open, why should he be compelled to shut it simply because other people object to working? The only solution that I can see to that proposition is that we should limit the number of hours that the shop assistants should work, but in its present form I think the Bill would be inequitable as between districts. Therefore, I shall support the Clause now before the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the House to come to a decision? We are getting near closing time, and we have hardly begun to deal with the Bill. I have offered to leave this Clause to the decision of the House, and I hope a Division will now be taken.

Mr. STEWART: I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that all the evidence given to us by the newsagents was in favour of maintaining 8 o'clock closing. They resented the idea of any extension, and anyone who turns up the evidence will agree that it was all in favour of 8 o'clock closing. Everyone declared that it had not produced any difficulty, and now by this Clause it is proposed to undo all that.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 99.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[12.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Philipson, Mabel


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Grotrian, H. Brent
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, C.
Smithers, Waldron


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bird, sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brittain, Sir-Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Vaughan, Morgan, Col. K. P.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Warner, Brigadier General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wells, S. R.


Drewe, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Finburgh, S.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Frece, Sir Walter do
Perring, sir William George



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Brocklebank and Sir Park Goff.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hume, Sir G. H
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Kennedy, T.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Broad, F. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Campbell, E. T.
Loder, J. de V.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Day, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Fielden, E. B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Barr.

CLAUSE 1.—(Closing hours.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lt.-Col. Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "section", and to insert instead thereof the word "Act".
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The object is to bring the words of the Sub-section into conformity with the wording at the beginning of the Schedule, and has no other effect.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Special provisions as to confectionery.)

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment emanates from the Glasgow Corporation, and the reason we put it down is the difficulty of administering the Act. We are desirous that people, keeping open ostensibly for the sale of one article, should not be allowed to make that the medium for illicitly supplying other commodities that they are not entitled to supply. That is the
desire behind this Amendment, and the evidence given to us on all hands while the Committee was sitting was almost entirely in support of the omission of this Clause. Confectioners selling newspapers, newsagents selling tobacco, fruiterers selling confectionery—all these things are taking place, and in many cases there was only an appearance of supplying the goods that could be supplied after hours; and thus harm was done to the people who were engaged in those trades and who closed at the hours laid down by law. If this Amendment be carried, it will remove an anomaly, simplify administration, and make it easier for the citizens to remain law-abiding.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to urge the House to realise what this Clause will mean to the people who work in the sugar confectionery, ice cream and chocolate shops. When we were in Committee on this Bill, the Labour party urged over and over again, but without success, that, if this extension of hours were to be allowed, there should be some Clause limiting the hours of workers in those shops to 48. This Clause as it stands means appallingly long hours for the shop assistants, many of them mere girls. May I call the attention of the House to what it will mean in actual practice. Most of these shops open at 8.30 or 9 o'clock. In some cases in those that open at 8.30, the girls are expected to be there earlier in order to set out the shop, to dust, and to arrange the various commodities; but, even supposing that they go in at 8.30, that means that on five or even six days a week, they can work until 9.30 at night. Many of these chocolate and ice cream shops are open on Sunday, and therefore it means not only five days a week until 9.30 with a sixth day till 10 o'clock, but in many cases a six-day week with a seventh day until 10 o'clock. That means that something like from 90 to 100 hours a week will be worked by the girls in those shops. The only protection that exists at the present time is that hopelessly antiquated Act which provides that young persons under 18 shall not be employed in or about a shop for more than 70 hours a week. It means that girls of 15 to 17 can be employed for 70 hours, and girls who have passed their 18th birthday can be employed from 90 to 100 hours per week. That is what is happen-
ing in many large towns, and I ask the House to realise what it means to the health of the girls. They are working in a very confined atmosphere, many of the shops are small, and the air space is little, and the girls have no opportunities for healthful, open-air recreation. I want to appeal to my women colleagues on the other side of the House, and especially to the hon. Member who has so particularly identified herself with increasing the hours of shop life—for what reason I cannot understand, except that she has very little experience.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I have never been in, favour of increasing the hours of shop assistants, but I have been working for many ex-service men and ex-service women who have wanted to fight and work for their individual selves. I understand that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is speaking on behalf of many girls employed in chocolate factories. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Yes, she said that allowing the shops to keep open longer is forcing many girls in factories to work longer hours.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Miss WILKINSON: The hon. Member's interruption shows the appalling state of muddle-headedness in which she has been from the beginning to the end of our work on this Bill. She only troubled herself while the Committee was sitting to attend two of its meetings, and then she came and showed little idea of what we were talking about. She ought really to have read this Clause very carefully before she took up the attitude she does. I am not talking about girls in chocolate factories; I am concerned about the hours of girls who are working in chocolate, confectionery and ice-cream shops. This Clause, I would remind the hon. Member, extends the hours of girls in those shops. We are not concerned with ex service men and ex-service women, and one must remind the hon. Member that we cannot take steps for a small section without realising the effect it has on the trade as a whole. The effect of the hon. Member's work in this matter, and that of her colleagues, will mean that thousands of girls in the shops up and down the country will work from 90 to 100 hours a week, and I would ask her whether she is prepared to agree to that.
We ought really to think about the girls in this matter. We are not talking about highly necessary drugs or medicines or ice or things that are needed when people are suddenly ill. This Clause deals with luxuries, with chocolates, ice-cream and sweets, and nobody will be particularly inconvenienced if they cannot buy these luxuries after eight o'clock on an ordinary day, and nine o'clock on Saturdays. It is only a small, thoughtless section of the public that is demanding these extra hours, and, if they are so thoughtless, selfish, and inconsiderate of the feelings of others, it is time that this House said that, where luxuries of this kind are concerned, they have no right to keep girls working these late hours. Therefore, I am going to appeal both to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and hon. Members opposite to pass this Amendment to leave out Clause 2, and bring these confectionery and sweet shops under the generally quite long enough hours, the far too long hours, laid down by the Act.

Sir F. MEYER: I hope the house will realise that this Amendment goes to the very root of the whole Bill. In the moderate language of the hon. Member who moved it and the hon. Lady who seconded it, it sounded as though this were only a minor matter, and as though the Clause inflicted very great hardships on a number of working girls. But the Clause goes to the root of the Bill. The Bill itself is a compromise. I would remind the House of the genesis of this legislation. It is the outcome of a report by a Committee set up as the result of a petition from a large number of Members of this House asking that more liberty should be given to the public in the purchase of certain luxuries. I admit they are luxuries, but they are luxuries of a kind which are very often wanted by people when they are out enjoying themselves. The petition asked that the public should be allowed to do what they were able to do before this legislation was first brought in during the war, that is to say, to buy tobacco and cigarettes and chocolates when they are out enjoying themselves either in theatres or other places of amusement.
This concession has been given in another Clause of the Bill, and obviously we could not make that concession if we
were to take away a concession which already exists and was not given by this Bill; a concession which has existed for some years and allows confectioners to sell their wares from eight to nine-thirty on weekdays and up to ten o'clock on one day in the week. Very clear evidence was presented to the Committee by the confectionery trade that this was a privilege which was very much prized. There was clear evidence that a very large part of the sales of confectionery take place after eight o'clock at night. Percentages were given relating to different districts and different shops. I will not weary the House with the figures given in evidence, but nobody on that Committee will deny that that evidence did prove that in a number of cases a very high percentage of the sales took place in the evening, running up to 30 or 35 per cent.
If the House will look at this matter from a common sense point of view, they will appreciate why that is the case. People buy chocolates and other confectionery very much on the spur of the moment. The sales are very largely chance sales. It is when men and women are out either at the theatre or the cinema, or even strolling up and down the streets on a fine evening, that a very large sale of confectionery takes place. The small confectioners came to us and said: "If you deprive us of the privilege of selling our confectionery during those hours, we shall be deprived of a very large part of our livelihood." The matter was thrashed out at very great length on the Committee, and I do not think I am giving away any secret when I say that if this concession had not been made whereby confectioners should be able to stay open till 9.30 as now—and the concession also about tobacco which we are coming to presently—there would not have been by any means a unanimous report from the Committee. Certainly there would have been a majority and minority report. I cannot tell the House, because I do not know myself, which side would have been in the majority, but I think the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) will agree with me that not only myself and the hon. Member for Berwick (Mrs. Philipson) but a number of other non-Parliamentary Members of the Committee felt very strongly against taking away the confectioners' privilege. There
would not have been a unanimous report if we had not embodied that recommendation.
Therefore, I claim that this Clause is an integral part of the Bill, and I say quite distinctly that if you take out Clauses 2 and 3 I shall be against the Bill. This Bill is a compromise. Many of us on this side started with a wish to see more freedom all round for the shopkeeping community. The evidence presented to us in Committee convinced us that although a certain section of the shopkeeping community might like to have extended hours, the large majority of ordinary shops would be satisfied if eight o'clock closing were made a permanent part of the law; but we were equally convinced that there are exceptions. It is all very well to talk about making this Bill a sieve by putting in exemptions here and there, but all legislation is a compromise, and if we are going to make hard-and-fast rules to suit certain sections of the community without giving consideration to the wishes of particular sections who have particular needs then, I say, I shall be against this Bill as a whole. I will give it no further support, and I will ask my hon. Friends who have worked with me to vote against it on Third Reading. We must have this compromise, which is a compromise founded almost word for word on the result of the deliberations of the Committee, in itself a compromise. If we do not get that, I say quite frankly that I do not want the Bill at all, and many of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee agree with me in that view.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) made a moving appeal on behalf of workers in the confectionery shops, but I think I can discount some of the effects which that appeal might have on honourable Members by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of confectioners who, at the present time, keep open, say, till 9.30, do not employ assistants. I admit that there are a large number of confectioners who do employ assistants. If you walk round, as I have done, in order to study this question, you find that those shops mostly conform to the ordinary closing hours of the district, whether it be eight o'clock, or seven o'clock, or, in some cases, even six o'clock. The shops which have availed themselves of the privilege given in 1921 are mostly the
small shops in outlying districts or in back streets

Mr. STEWART: That is not true of Glasgow.

Sir F. MEYER: I take it at once from the hon. Member that it is not true of Glasgow. I would not contradict him, because my knowledge of Glasgow is not so considerable as his, which is my misfortune.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are not the youthful members of the shopkeepers' families to be considered? Is it reasonable that young girls who happen to be daughters of the proprietor should be engaged all those hours?

Sir F. MEYER: I am afraid that is a matter on which I should require some evidence. Personally, I am not in favour of legislation interfering as between parents and their children [Interruption.] I say that frankly. That has always been my attitude. I am in favour of legislation insisting on children being educated and protected from cruelty, but I am not in favour of legislation interfering as regards how children are employed after they have left school. I think what parents are to do with their children after they leave school is a matter for education, example and teaching, but not one for this House to legislate upon. I repeat that the number of shop assistants employed, as the result of this privilege which they now possess, and which this Amendment seeks to take away, is, in my constituency, London, and other places, very small indeed. I grant the exception in the case of Glasgow, but that seems to me to be a matter which would be dealt with much better by a Measure dealing with the hours of shop assistants. We are dealing in this Clause with a lot of very small shopkeepers, and we should not take away from them a privilege which they have been enjoying all their lives, and which was only temporarily taken away from them in 1916 by a War Measure. These small shopkeepers consider the business done in the evening to be a very important part of their trade, and, although it is true that it is only a chance trade, they say that if you take it away from them you will ruin them. For these reasons, I ask the House to consider this question very carefully before deciding to
cut out this Clause. If you delete this Clause, you will vitiate the whole compromise, and the promoters will have to reconsider their position.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am sure that those who are supporting the Amendment on this side of the House have no desire to minimise the importance of it. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the Glasgow Corporation supported this Amendment because of difficulties in carrying out the Regulations where there is a mixed business. Of course, we pay great attention to the opinions of local authorities, and rightly so. There is a more important corporation than Glasgow that supports this Amendment, and it is the Edinburgh Corporation; and, when two such distinguished corporations declare themselves anxious that this Amendment should be passed, I think the House should consider the matter very seriously. The hours of labour are of great importance to shop assistants. It has been shown that the hours of labour are not otherwise dealt with, and the only way in which we can ensure that many young girls will not be overworked—many of them are not in a strong condition of health—is to pass this Amendment. I would like to tell the House that chocolates, ice cream, and so on are better for health if they are not taken late at night. Therefore, speaking from a health point of view, I think it is in the interests of the general community that as few chocolates and as little ice cream as possible should be taken after 8 o'clock at night. I think we have now advanced several extra arguments in favour of this Amendment.

Sir W. PERRING: I am very anxious that this Clause shall not be thrown out in such a way that we shall run the danger of losing the Bill altogether. I am one of those who signed the report of the Departmental Committee, and I have acted loyally to the compromise which has been referred to. That is why I desire to see this Clause retained in the Bill. I am quite sure that, if hon. Members of the Labour party wish to wreck this Bill altogether, they are very likely to succeed by cutting out Clauses 2 and 3. I feel sure that if this Clause is cut out hon. Members who have other views on this matter will talk
this Measure out, and we shall not get the Bill through to-day. I say that as a friend of the small shopkeepers, and as one who has stood for the principle of early closing for over 20 years.
Hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment are pursuing a policy which will break up the compromise arrived at among those interested in the Bill, and, if hon. Members wish to wreck this Bill, they need only to pursue the tactics which they are now adopting of endeavouring to cut out certain paragraphs in the Schedule and certain Clauses. The only result of adopting such a course will be to keep the Debate going until four o'clock, with the result that those of us who have fought for the main principle of this Measure, will see the Bill lost, and it may be a very long time before we get another opportunity of dealing with the questions which are dealt with in this Measure. Hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment have already got seven-eighths of their own way, and I ask them not to pursue a policy which will ruin the chance of passing this Bill simply because they cannot get the other one-eighth. Let us get on with the compromise which has been arrived at between the two conflicting parties and let us place this Bill on the Statute Book.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring). The Opposition to this Clause has been based on two very extraordinary arguments, the first being that chocolates and table waters are in themselves bad and that they are injurious to health. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) put forward the amazing argument that chocolates and table waters were bad late at night.

Dr. SHIELS: I said chocolates and ice cream.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: According to that argument, all intoxicants are bad late at night, and I do not know what is going to happen if you are going to deprive people of the right to have refreshments because they want to have them late in the evening. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) seems to think that chocolates do a great deal of harm to the British public.

Miss WILKINSON: I never said anything of the kind. Far be it from me to suggest that chocolates are harmful to the British public. What I did say was that it was selfish for the British public to want to buy chocolates after eight o'clock at night.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Amendment has been moved for the purpose of depriving people of the privilege of enjoying themselves at night in what has always been considered to be a perfectly normal and healthy way. It has been argued that if this Clause remains in the Bill the shop assistants will have to work longer hours. May I point out that this is not a Bill for the limitation of hours of labour, and if hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment will produce a Bill to limit the hours of shop assistants, I am ready to support them. This Bill has been brought forward in order to give the British public an extension of their liberties, and that is the whole object of the Measure.
This Bill would never have been brought before the House had there not been great indignation expressed by the British public, because they are at present deprived of the right to buy chocolates and sweets at night. It was that indignation which caused the Home Secretary to appoint a Committee to consider this question. That Committee has reported, and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) who sat upon that Committee, agrees with their report. The whole object of the Bill is to allow people to do what, as normal citizens, one would expect them to do in a civilised country. It was found that foreigners were discouraged from coming here, and a great deal of irritation and annoyance was caused to our own people—largely working-class people, because the working-classes consume as much chocolate as the wealthier classes. Had this been a Bill for limiting hours I should have supported it, but the extraordinary thing is that the people who support this Bill will not introduce one for limiting hours. Their object is to stop the public enjoying themselves in the evening. If that were not their object, why do they not come before this House with a Bill to limit the hours of shop assistants, and, having done that, say that the British public can buy what it wants and when it wants. The logical conclusion of the argument of
the hen. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough would be that the railways would stop in the evening at eight o'clock.

Miss WILKINSON: They work in shifts.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Precisely, and why cannot the shop assistants work in shifts?

Miss WILKINSON: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he has not read the Order Paper. If he is appealing to us to bring in Clauses to limit hours, he will find that that is precisely what we are doing by the Amendments to Clause 6.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Lady is in favour of the shift principle, why does she try to reject the whole Clause, because there would be no necessity for shifts if shops were not allowed to remain open? According to her, all railways, electricity undertakings, and garages; will have to close at eight o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the House."] Certainly, I wish the House would close at eight o'clock, but hon. Members on the Labour Benches seem to take a delight in keeping the House of Commons up. It is perfectly reasonable that it should be advanced that shop assistants should work in shifts. It is perfectly reasonable that the hours of assistants should be limited to 48. The workers in every other trade have fought for that principle, but the shop assistants do not fight for that principle, and, by asking us to force the closing of shops at a certain hour, they are depriving us of liberties which are our right. Consumers have as much right to be considered as anybody else, providing that the shop assistants are not abused. I will support a Bill for limiting the hours of shop assistants, but I will not support a Bill which rings the curfew bell in England at eight o'clock and brings the life of the community to a standstill and reduces England to a graveyard.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Several hon. Members who were Members of the Committee on this question have pointed out, quite rightly, that this Bill, like all really good legislation, is based on a compromise. I would ask the House to consider very carefully before they definitely upset that compromise. I am perfectly certain that, if they do, they will not assist the
final passage of this legislation. The hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), in her remarks about this Clause, gave me the impression—though it may not have been so intended—that she regarded this Clause as really something quite new in our legislation. Might I point out that this provision, so far as the first Sub-section of the Clause is concerned, is not a new provision at all? It is in operation now, and it has been in operation for the last seven years. Therefore, we are not attempting to do something in this Bill which will impose upon anybody greater burdens than are in existence at the moment. We are actually, by the second Sub-section, endeavouring to give this particular group of shopkeepers something which they have not at present, and that is the power to close earlier by a simple majority if they wish to do so. Therefore, far be it from anybody to suggest that this Clause is an imposition which did not exist before. The whole Bill is based on a compromise. It is the result of a Committee which sat for a very long time and which, practically speaking, sent in a unanimous report. I maintain that the second Sub-section of this Clause does assist the shopkeepers in the confectionery trade in a way in which they are not assisted now, and that it will be, or may be, of real benefit to them. I hope for these reasons that the House will not delete either this Clause or the one that follows.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. MACKINDER: One can understand the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) supporting anything which will allow the shops in Yarmouth to keep open until 10 o'clock at night, especially during the holiday season. Being a Conservative Member, he would not be doing his duty if he did not put that point of view.

Sir F. MEYER: I quite agree with what the hon. Member says, but it is not as a Conservative that I do this, but as representing a petition from the Yarmouth shopkeepers.

Mr. MACKINDER: All I say is that he would not be doing his duty as the representative of Yarmouth if he did not put that point of view. I can always
understand the Tory point of view and the Tory mind, but we really cannot understand the point of view of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) who spoke from the Liberal Benches—the friends of the workers who have always been the supporters of any Measure which would protect the workers. In plain fact, he is supporting a proposal that will allow girl shop assistants to work 100 hours a week, with no Regulation whatever to provide that they shall work less.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Bill does not deal with the hours of shop assistants, and there is nothing in the Bill which prevents shop assistants working any number of hours. I am in favour of limiting the hours of assistants, and this Bill makes no provision for doing that.

Mr. MACKINDER: Because he is in favour of limiting the hours of assistants, the hon. Member is in favour of them working until 10 o'clock at night! It is because he wants to protect the interests of the shop assistants that he is prepared to vote for a Clause that will allow them to work until 10 o'clock at night, with no Government Regulations as to how long they are allowed to work or the hour at which they start or finish. They can work for 100 hours a week, and there is no Regulation to prevent it, and the hon. Member, as the friend of the workers, is prepared to support a Clause like that. I can understand the Conservative mind. They say definitely what they stand for and we can always understand them, but I really cannot understand the point of view of the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches. The plain fact is that this Bill will allow our girls and young women to work 100 hours a week. I am against any Bill which allows any young girl to work 100 hours a week without any Regulation to govern the number of hours. My position is plain, and the position of the hon. Member for Yarmouth is plain, but the position of the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches is absolutely mystifying to me. He would agree to a Bill to regulate hours of labour, but that is not in the Bill. We are not discussing a Bill to regulate hours of labour; we are discussing a Bill to allow shops to keep open until 10 o'clock at night, six days a week, and the hon. Member is prepared to support that Bill. I am not. The hon. Member for Yarmouth
said that the majority of the shops did not keep open until 10 at night where they employ assistants. It is too thin for words.

Sir F. MEYER: I said that the majority of shops which kept open were shops that did not employ assistants.

Mr. MACKINDER: That is what I said.

Sir F. MEYER: No, quite different.

Mr. MACKINDER: What I meant was that the hon. Member said that the majority of shops which kept open were family businesses which did not keep assistants. Does not the hon. Member realise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), namely, that the daughters of these shopkeepers have to work, and that they do not work on the shift system? The hon. Member must realise that when a family opens a shop some member of that family is at work from the opening of the shop until its closing, whether it be the father, the mother, or sister Jane. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do; but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these confectioners' shops employ assistants, and there is nothing to prevent the employment of those assistants from half-past eight in the morning until 10 o'clock at night.

Sir W. PERRING: Nine-thirty; and they also have an early night on Sunday. You can work it out how you like, but you cannot make it 100 hours, or even 80 hours. It is a gross exaggeration; keep to the facts.

Mr. MACKINDER: From eight in the morning——

Sir W. PERRING: They do not open at eight.

Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member is concerned with the distributive trade, and he knows that shop assistants do not turn up at the hour of opening, but long before.

Sir W. PERRING: Rubbish!

Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member says it is rubbish——

Sir W. PERRING: It is rubbish.

Mr. MACKINDER: I should like to stigmatise it by a different name, but I am afraid that I should not be in order
if I told the hon. Member exactly what I think he is.

Sir W. PERRING: Shop assistants do not come before the shops open.

Mr. MACKINDER: I am a member of a union that has some 60,000 shop assistants as members, and we know the conditions under which shop assistants work. The hon. Member knows that the shop assistant has to set his shop out. Does he set it out during the day, especially in the case of a confectioner's shop? They set it out before they open. Do they tidy up during the day? They do not. They do it when the shop is closed. The hon. Member shakes his head. Do they set the shops out during the day, and clean them up during the day?

Sir W. PERRING: Yes.

Mr. MACKINDER: Do they clean them up when the shop is locked up?

Sir W. PERRING: No.

Mr. MACKINDER: Oh, they never do it then, but always during the day. I will leave Members of the House to consider who is right and who is wrong. But the hon. Member knows that the normal hour of opening is eight o'clock to half-past; nine o'clock is not the regular hour. My hon. Friend has been working out the figures, and we find that six days at 13 hours, from 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., and one day at 13½ hours, from 8.30 a.m. to 10 p.m. makes 91½ hours.

Sir F. MEYER: They do not work 13 hours on Sunday.

Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member knows that there is no law to regulate the hours, and the hours for which shop assistants are allowed to work in this country are a scandal. Even young persons are allowed to work in this way, though they must not work more than 70 hours a week. The position is disgraceful. Hon. Members threaten that, if we proceed with this Amendment, they will wreck the Bill, by talking it out. That is very kind of them, and we shall have to remember it. I hope that the House will accept this Amendment, and will show that at all events it considers the lives of our girls. If the House is prepared to pass this Bill exactly as it is, all that we
shall have to say to the country is that the House of Commons is making its choice between the pleasure of some people who want to go to the cinemas and theatres and buy their sweets after eight o'clock at night, and the health and lives of our girls who work in the shops. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote for the health and conditions of our girls, and to support this Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: I would like to add my appeal to those which have already been made to hon. Members opposite that they should not seek to put into this Bill all that they would like it to contain, or to exclude from it everything that they do not like. I would ask them to remember that at the end of this year, if this Bill should fall to the ground, we shall be faced with the termination of the early closing which has been the law of our country by annual continuations since 1920. This Bill would never have been before us to-day had it not been—I am saying this on my own authority—that the departmental Committee were able to present a unanimous Report. There is a great deal in this Bill that every Member of the Committee did not like, but they agreed on a unanimous Report, with certain small modifications on the part of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), and one or two others. We all agreed to much that we did not like, with a view to securing that unanimity which was necessary, at any rate from the point of view of the Home Office, if our Report was to be translated into law.
I would ask hon. Members to bear that clearly in mind in their attitude towards this Amendment and the following one, because the inclusion of these Clauses was a sine qua non of our securing unanimity. I do not quite know what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) when he spoke about the views of those who sit on the Conservative benches, but I would say that I, at any rate, represent the cause of early closing, and it is quite as dear to my heart as it is to his. It is my privilege to represent in this House the Early Closing Association, which during the last 86 years has done more for early closing than any other organisation in this country.

Mr. STEWART rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I am not concerned with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) about my work on the Committee, but about what the general public think, and about the men and women from whom I have received hundreds of letters. I can only say that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to wreck the Bill. This Bill, as several hon. Members have said, is the result of a compromise in the Committee. I fought consistently ail through for the one-man shopkeeper's individual right and freedom, as he pays rates and taxes, and there was no question of my wishing that assistants should be employed for longer hours. I want hon. Members to know that once and for all. I should also like to point out that, when the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough talks about our working girls, she must understand that in our large factories there are very many of our boys and girls employed in making these sweets, and, if you are going to restrict the demand for sweets in the shops by not allowing them to sell after certain hours, you are restricting also the work and wages of the people employed in their manufacture—the very people that we are trying to help.
As has been said by the hon. Member who speaks on behalf of the Early Closing Association—and no one on the opposite benches can deny the work that that Association has done on behalf of the assistants—this compromise had to be made, simply because it had been already decided that the sale of chocolates to the public in theatres and cinemas after certain hours should be allowed, and, as has already been pointed out, it was considered only right to give to the small tobacconist, and other men and women who were trying to make their living as individual shopkeepers, the same right as the big combines who supply the people in the cinemas and theatres. This does not compel anyone to keep open; it simply means that, by a two-thirds majority of the local authority, they will have the right to do what is allowed to be done in the theatres and cinemas.
I cannot understand any hon. Member opposite wanting to wreck the Bill, for that is what this Amendment means. The Bill does not go nearly as far as I would like it to go on behalf of our small shopkeepers and the public. Day after day foreigners are coming to this country, and the people in their factories are making chocolates and sending them to our shops, while we have all these restrictions against our own small people who are wanting to get on and make a, living. The Home Secretary is willing and desirous, I feel sure, that this Bill should go through this afternoon, and I do appeal to hon. Members opposite to show a spirit of give-and-take in regard to these small shopkeepers. I can say to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough quite frankly that no one in their youth worked harder or for longer hours than I did. I was left an orphan very early, and had to support a family, and I spent my time in working, and not in agitating. No one has the right to stand up and say that I have less feeling for our girls and boys and men and women than the hon. Member has.
I am fighting now for the Bill to go through and to give the little shopkeepers the right to open if they want to. They may not want it. If they want to close their shops they can. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to accept this compromise and do a little to help get the Bill through. One hon. Member who has fought consistently for the Early Closing Association is willing to accept it. When I am in the House I work not from the women's or the men's but from the national point of view. I have hundreds of letters from small shopkeepers who want this extension. You might as well say to an agricultural worker: "We will give you a small holding, but directly you get the land and want to become a farmer you are not to be a farmer. We will not allow you to work any longer hours and we will not let you have your freedom and your individual rights." This is a chance to do something really-good, not only for the shopkeeper and the public, but also for the assistant, on whose behalf you say you are working. I ask hon. Members not to wreck the Bill but to let it go through.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to make an appeal. I see the hon. Member
for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) wishes to move the Closure.

Mr. STEWART indicated dissent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want any Closure. I want to get the thing through. I do not propose to discuss the arguments on either side. Quite obviously the hon. Lady who has just spoken feels strongly, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) also feels very strongly indeed. The Bill is frankly a compromise. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that Clause 1 is worth a very great deal. It takes the whole question of shop assistants' hours out of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and makes it a charter until the Bill is revoked, which I do not think it ever will be. I know hon. Members opposite do not like Clauses 2 and 3, but the real essence of the Bill from their point of view is Clause 1. That is the Clause they want. I do not think they can get the Bill through without Clauses 2 and 3. I could not appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House to let the Bill go through without those Clauses in it. The Under-Secretary has worked in Committee, and the staff of the Home Office has worked for many months, to get an agreed compromise, and it is a matter of great moment to the whole shopkeeping community. It settles many difficult questions raised by D.O.R.A. in years past and I ask hon Members not to make my course more difficult. I want to get the Bill through and to play fairly and squarely with the House in regard to it. If they persist in moving Amendments which hon. Members on this side cannot possibly accept, they may imperil the Bill. I hope, therefore, they will let this go and let us get the Bill shortly.

Mr. STEWART: I rose at the same time that the right hon. Gentleman rose to say I had consulted with the members of the Glasgow Corporation, who are responsible for this Amendment, and they have asked me to withdraw it. Mention has been made of wrecking tactics, and the right hon. Gentleman says the Bill is a compromise, but only a little while ago he left to the free will of the House a Motion which in our opinion was something in the nature of a wrecking Motion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Special provisions as to tobacco and smokers' requisites.)

Sir PARK GOFF: I beg to move, on page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) A local authority may by order direct that the provisions of this Act relating to general closing hours or the provisions of any closing order made by them under the principal Act shall not apply with respect to the sale in billiard halls or billiard rooms within their area of tobacco and matches to persons bona fide taking part in or watching billiards or any similar game, and in a part of the building to which no other persons have access.
Originally, in Committee I added swimming and boxing as well as billiards. I gauged the feeling of the Committee, and I have dropped swimming and boxing, but I understand the feeling was quite in favour of billiards. I speak more especially for towns and villages in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where they have billiard matches every night. I think we had the support of the entire Committee as far as billiards is concerned, and I consulted with my right hon. Friend and I think he is in agreement with me. The Bill itself is practically an agreed Measure. It is a compromise. It has been a case of sacrificing on both sides and on all sides, and I believe the feeling of the House is an honest and genuine desire that the Bill should go through as expeditiously and smoothly as it did in Committee.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We were appealed to a few moments ago and we withdrew our Amendment to delete Clause 2, and I refrained from moving the deletion of Clause 3, in order to help to get the Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us to facilitate the passage of the Measure but, strangely enough, I believe he went into the Division Lobby in support of the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. When I leave a matter to the free vote of the House I feel it my duty to take no part.

Mr. DAVIES: I apologise. At any rate we have carried a new Clause against which the Committee definitely reported, and here we have a new Sub-
section proposed about which there is not a single word in the whole report. The hon. Member says he speaks for Lancashire and Yorkshire. I think I have very much more title to speak for Lancashire than he has. I live in the heart of Lancashire—in Manchester. If the House accepts this Sub-section it will raise once again the old cry, "If you allow cigarettes and tobacco to be sold in billiard halls, why cannot we not open our shops as well?" and you have the old idea that once you make a concession on this hand you have to make concessions on all hands. Let me ask the hon. Member one thing. Who is going to take the initiative with the local authorities? The people who own billiard halls are going to fall into a different category altogether from the ice cream vendors and the other shopkeepers. In their case, there must be a majority either of 50 per cent. or two-thirds, but in this case the local authority "may, by order, direct." I do not know who is going to apply to the local authorities. I take it that if the Mayor of a little town owns a billiard hall, he will see to it that the local authority does this. The hon. Member knows quite well that that may be the case, and I am sure he will be on my side straight away, because I believe he stands for cleanliness in public administration. Let me give another argument. What about the young men, the lads from 15 who go to the billiard halls? The billiard halls, as far as I know, are conducted properly now, but I should hesitate to allow a boy of mine to remain in a billiard hall puffing at cigarettes until after 12 midnight and beyond that hour. That is what the hon. Member is going to make possible.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: He can "puff" in a billiard hall now.

Mr. DAVIES: But he cannot buy cigarettes for the purpose of puffing in a billiard hall. In reality, there are two arguments against this proposal. First of all "the local authority may direct," and that, at any rate, gives an entirely new complexion to the Bill. In this case, a little bit of intrigue and wirepulling by the owners of two or three billiard halls, and then you would get an order directing that they should be entitled to sell. I say that it is grossly unfair to other shopkeepers in the vicinity of the billiard
halls. I know a billiard hall in Manchester where there is a small tobacconist's shop right on the corner; in fact, it is almost a part of the billiard hall itself. What will happen? The shopkeeper on the ground floor of the billiard hall with a tobacconist business will be compelled to close, but the people who enter the billiard hall will be entitled to buy their tobacco and cigarettes inside. It is a preposterous idea, and I hope for the reasons I have given that the House will decline to accept the Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: I wish to appeal to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment to withdraw it just as earnestly as I appealed to the hon. Member who moved the last Amendment. There are provisions in the Bill which are unfair—and I am bound to recognise this—to tobacconists, in that we allow licensed victuallers to sell tobacco and matches during the hours that they are open; and, similarly, the theatres, cinemas, music halls, and similar places of entertainment may sell tobacco, matches, and other articles during the hours when they are open. But, while we agree to this provision, a provision which we recognise is a hardship upon the tradespeople whose goods are being sold at these places, there is no reason why the provision should be extended further. There is a distinct difference between the position of billiard halls and that of the theatres and other places where permission is given for sales to take place. In the case of theatres and cinemas, no one can be present without having paid for entrance. Therefore, they are bona fide members of the audience, whereas in the case of billiard halls I think I am right in saying that on an ordinary day, when there is no special match being played and when members of the public go in to play themselves, there is no entrance charge made for merely going into the hall. I hope I do not put this unfairly, but I understand that that is the position. Therefore, it will be grossly unfair that ordinary members of the public shall be able to come in and buy tobacco and matches when, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said, there may be a tobacconist's shop alongside the building, at which the sole trade is in tobacco, and which is compelled to close at eight o'clock. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw this
Amendment, and that, if he does not—though I am sure he will—the House will reject it.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I should like to join in the appeal that has been made to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment to show the same reasonable spirit of compromise which we have shown upon these benches by not pressing this Amendment. If this Amendment were to stop at billiard halls, there would still be an injustice. To me, the difficulty is what is meant by "billiard rooms." I have no difficulty in defining billiard halls, but I have considerable difficulty in defining a billiard room. I understand that the hon. Member is willing to assent to the request that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) has made and not proceeded with his Amendment, and, therefore, I will cut my remarks short.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is only right, after I have made an appeal to hon. Members on one side to withdraw Amendments which jeopardise the Bill, to appeal to my hon. Friend to do the same on this occasion. I think the fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), that many of the persons who go to these billiard halls do not have to pay for admission, does, in effect, constitute a billiard hall an open shop, and that is clearly against this Bill. If my hon. Friend can see his way to withdraw his Amendment, his action will facilitate the passing of the Bill.

Sir P. GOFF: I have no hesitation in taking that action. This Bill, as we know, has been a compromise all through, a question of give and take on each side otherwise, it would have never got through the Committee stage so quickly and expeditiously as it did. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 6.—(Special provisions as to holiday resorts.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "shall" in line 11 to the word "and" in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(i) be entitled in respect to any time worked beyond the normal hours of employ-
ment prevailing prior to the order to payment at the ordinary rate of wages plus fifty per cent.; or
(ii) immediately the order ceases to operate, have their working hours readjusted so as to afford relief to a like number of hours as the extra hours worked consequent upon the order; or
(iii) be entitled to a holiday corresponding to the extra hours worked with full pay.
I am pleased to note the readiness on all sides of the House to enter into a spirit of compromise on this Bill, but, so far as this particular Amendment is concerned, we are hoping and expecting that not only the promoter of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but that all Members in all parts of the House will feel disposed to accept it. What is it for which we are asking here? First of all, traders in special areas in various parts of the country are seeking a distinct trading advantage over their colleagues in other parts of the country. They are granted permission in certain circumstances to keep open their business premises for a considerable number of hours for a period of no less than four months during the year. We are told by the supporters of the small shopkeepers, and particularly by Members who come from seaside resorts, that if we do not grant this very special privilege to seaside resorts or fishing places, or what is termed loosely, holiday resorts, we shall tend to destroy their businesses, and, at least, to embarrass not only the shopkeepers but a large number of their potential customers. I presume that, say what we will, Clause 6 will remain in the Bill, and these special privileges will be conceded to the shopkeepers in these particular areas. What we claim is that there should be displayed the same spirit of compromise which dominated the House in 1912 when the half-day holiday was being sacrificed by the shop assistants and the shopkeeper, rightly, came forward and conceded a 14 days' holiday, with full pay, as a concession granted to the shop assistants who were losing their half-day holiday. We ask that the same compensatory advantage should be given under this Bill where the shop assistant is called upon for four months in the year to sacrifice the privileges for which he has fought.
The Home Secretary may say that, once an application has been made under the Act, the local authority can specify the number of hours and the conditions under which the shop assistants shall work, but the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that invariably we find, in seaside resorts especially, that the councils are packed by traders who have little or nothing in common with their assistants, and it is very little that we can expect from that particular section of the community. As Parliament is granting these special privileges to shopkeepers, we think that Parliament ought to safeguard the interests of the employés. We are seeking that where a concession of this description has been granted to shopkeepers in holiday resorts, fishing resorts and so forth, and they are permitted to remain open almost for unlimited hours for four months during the year, that for any time worked in excess of the normal number of hours operating in those districts prior to the passing of the Act, time and a half should be paid to the shop assistants. We think that is a fairly reasonable concession.
If the traders, who know how much business is transacted after the normal closing hours, realise that they are obliged to compensate the shop assistants for the extra hours they are called upon to work, they will take that into serious consideration when the application is made to the local authority. They will balance up the accounts for and against and, presumably, on the balance of evidence their application will be made or withheld. Therefore we shall not impose an unfair burden upon the traders by this Amendment because the traders will know in advance whether or not the extra business done after the normal closing hour would be sufficient to warrant them in seeking an extension, knowing that they will have to pay their shop assistants at the rate of time and a half for the extra number of hours they would be called upon to work. It is due to the shop assistants that where Parliament grants concessions which lengthen their hours of employment for a certain period during the year, Parliament ought to insist that at the conclusion of the four months period, the shop assistants shall go back to the normal number of hours that they were employed prior to the Special Order becoming operative. We
think that, as in 1912, so in 1928, where the shop assistant makes a sacrifice as the result of an extension of hours for this period, holidays ought to be granted.
In seeking these compensatory advantages for the sacrifice that the shop assistants will be called upon to make, we feel that the spirit of compromise should operate and that hon. Members should agree to this Amendment. At the present time, the shop assistant has no protection from the point of view of working hours except the protection given to young persons under the Act of 1921, which limits the hours for young persons in shops to 74 per week. So far as the mature shop assistant is concerned, where the age exceeds 18 years, he can be employed for 70, 80, 90 or 100 hours per week. In view of the lack of guarantees or safeguards for the shop assistant and the fact that special concessions are being granted to shopkeepers in special areas, it is not unfair to seek guarantees and protection for the shop assistant. I hope that the Home Secretary will not be unwilling to advise the House to accept the Amendment, so that we shall see the sympathy and the sense of equity which is so often referred to in this House, translated into practice. If we take that course, we shall feel when we leave this House to-day that we have had in mind the trader, the special areas in regard to concessions and that we have not forgotten the shop assistant who is called upon to make the biggest sacrifice of all.

Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With all the desire in the world to meet hon. Members opposite, I think this Amendment is going too far.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said that it is going a little too far. The House has decided, the Standing Committee upstairs decided, and the Committee which considered the matter previously decided that there should be special exemption made in regard to places like Blackpool, Yarmouth, Brighton and other health and holiday resorts. We all like to go on holidays, and we want conveniences for shopping. The question of the position of the shop assistant was considered by
the Committee, and they came to the conclusion that special provisions should be made in the Order for the protection of the shop assistant against unduly long hours. That has been very carefully provided for in Clause 6, which the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) attacked. Under that Clause, where a local authority makes any Order permitting shops in any holiday resorts to be kept open for longer hours, the Order—
shall be made subject to such conditions as the local authority may consider necessary for securing that shop assistants affected by the order shall not be employed in or about the business of a shop for more than such number of hours as may be specified by the order.
We do not say that the shops in holiday resorts shall be open, but we give power to the local authority to make Orders for extended hours, and, in so doing, they are to provide particularly that the shop assistants shall not be employed for more than a specified number of hours. If we are going to allow certain shops to be kept open until ten o'clock or eleven o'clock at night, the local authority, in so doing, may put in a specific Clause saying that the shop assistants shall not be employed more than the number of hours specified in the Order. That is going as far as it is wise to go. The Amendment really becomes very complicated indeed, and I doubt whether local authorities would be able to make it applicable. The hon. Member says that shop assistants employed more than the normal number of working hours shall be paid time and a-half for the extra hours, and that:
immediately the Order ceases to operate, have their working hours readjusted so as to afford relief to a like number of hours as the extra hours worked consequent upon the order.
It seems to suggest that they will go to sleep during the winter. Is this not going a little too much into detail? Shop assistants have the interests of their employers at heart. They are not paid by the hour like an ordinary trade union worker. They are paid a weekly wage. We are not, dealing with great stores and great emporiums such as we have in London, where the hours are regular and shop assistants paid a trade union rate of wages, but with small shops in these large holiday towns, where the small visitor to Blackpool or Yarmouth wants to
make certain purchases while on holiday. The real truth is that the man or woman who is employed in a small shop of that kind takes the rough with the smooth. He gets so much per week, his employment is a permanency, he becomes part of the business. I do not think we should place these small restrictions on the power of a local authority. We are handing over to the local authorities the power to say that shop assistants are not to be made to work too long hours, and they can specify the number of hours that they shall work. The Amendment is really going a little too far.

Mr. GROVES: Can we compromise, and put in time and a quarter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I propose to leave it to local authorities to see that shop assistants are not harshly teated. That is the broad principle of the Measure, and that is the principle upon which we can safely go.

Mr. GROVES: I should like to support the Amendment. The observations of the Home Secretary, although he has been talking about Yarmouth bloaters and things at Blackpool, show that in his perambulations he probably got to Margate. They are not actual experience. The trouble in our seaside towns is that the local authority is comprised mainly of people who are interested in the welfare of the town. There is nothing wrong in that, and I am not imputing motives to the members of local authorities, but in their enthusiasm to create interest in their towns they will go the fullest extent authorised by Acts of Parliament. My experience of seaside resorts leads me to believe that it does not work out quite so nicely as indicated by the Home Secretary. It would appear from the right hon. Gentleman that they work in the summer and rest in the winter. Literally that is true.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know as much about it as you do.

Mr. GROVES: I am not referring to this House, but to shop assistants in seaside resorts. They have to work many hours in the summer; from sunrise to sunset. They get the sack in the winter. In October the small shops in most of the east coast seaside towns close down. If you care to go to Southend you will
find as soon as the summer evenings close and the people cease to go on their excursions, the ordinary small shops close, and the assistants are put off until the advent of next summer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If that is so, if these small shops close down and the assistants get the sack in the winter, how will this new Clause help them at all?

Mr. GROVES: I was answering the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, made in quite a friendly criticism of the Amendment. He put the view that we are asking for something which is more than just. The Home Secretary said that they must take the rough with the smooth. I agree with that, generally speaking. I have been a workman all my life until I came here, and I have learned to take the rough with the smooth. We have to take it here. It is all right for hon. Members opposite who are on the shift system. We on this side have to do it all the time. If things were as the Home Secretary indicates, I would not support the Amendment, but it is because shop assistants in seaside resorts get all the rough in the summer and all the rough in the winter that I support it. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to disprove what I am saying, I will conclude my remarks at once and urge my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. But it is not the case that shop assistants have to take the rough with the smooth. They have to take all the rough and get none of the smooth. I support the suggestion that any hours worked over and above the normal working hours which were operating before the the order comes into effect should be paid, as in every workshop and factory, at the rate of time and a half. There is nothing harsh or unjust in such a claim.
My own experience with regard to places like Woolworth's is that they would engage their girls for the additional hours allowed. I am talking of seaside resorts only now, and of the large establishments of such firms. I am not attacking this particular firm. Such establishments engage a large number of young girls. The seaside resorts would offer an additional inducement for such shops to be kept open probably till 10.30 p.m. I know from experience of such firms in my area that they take advantage of the fact that they can at
certain seasons keep the girls at work on Thursday afternoons, and that they do so. They do not exhibit any sort of chivalry, taking the rough with the smooth. They do it without giving written notice, and call upon the girls to stay on Thursday afternoons to take stock or to decorate the windows. That happens to-day where I live, and is allowed by the Shop Hours Act of to-day. Therefore I think I am fortified in the view that if this House gives to shopkeepers in seaside resorts additional powers to engage their assistants for extra hours because of the particular circumstances connected with the arrival on holiday of many people from outside the area, some of them will make use of the powers.
None the less I believe that the general community of shopkeepers living in the seaside resorts would be glad to fall in with any compromise suggested by this House, and that if they desired, in the interests of their business, to engage their assistants, male or female, for hours above those previously understood to be the normal working hours, they would be pleased to fall in with the idea of paying an additional rate per hour. That would be done in the case of a coach-building or engineering factory. If the shopkeepers took such a course instead of expecting something for nothing they would be met in a spirit of good will. If the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment I believe that the general community of shopkeepers would respond in a spirit of compromise. It is wrong to call upon shop assistants to work additional hours merely to suit the convenience of visitors. If the longer hours are for the convenience of visitors to seaside resorts, the Amendment will give an opportunity to the Government to respond by giving to the assistants a more adequate return for the additional services they will be expected to render.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment, but I cannot agree that we should deal with the subject on such a Bill as this. I know a good deal about shop assistants and their life, both in large towns and in seaside resorts. I know the abnormal conditions that prevail daring the season in seaside resorts, but for the
life of me I cannot see how we are going to get a local authority to concern itself with the question of the payment of the assistants. I do not know of any other Act or Regulation dealing with wages that puts on the local authority the onus of ascertaining what wages are being paid, and then of saying, "You shall now pay time-and-a-half after a certain hour." I maintain that such a thing is absolutely unworkable. The last speaker talked about some of the large bazaars which employ a large number of girl assistants. Speaking as a shopkeeper I would welcome anything that would compel people such as the hon. Member mentioned to pay reasonable rates of wages, not merely for extra work, but for the ordinary work of the week. We private traders have to compete with the bazaars, and if we pay, as I hope we all do, proper remuneration to our assistants, and there are other people who do not, we are at a disadvantage in our competition with them.
Notwithstanding that I cannot see how we can deal with this question in the way that is suggested by the Amendment. Any question of the payment of shop assistants should be dealt with in a separate Bill. This Bill is to deal only with the question of the closing of shops, and if we were to deal with the thorny subject of shop assistants' hours and the far more thorny subject of their pay, we should be doing something neither reasonable nor right. As to seasonal trade, no doubt the girls and the male assistants work rather longer hours during the season than in the winter time. But there is in the Bill something entirely new, which does protect the interests of those assistants as regards hours. I submit that by the Amendment we would be asking the local authority to do more than they should do. It has been suggested that in the seaside resorts the majority of the people serving on the local authorities are traders. In some districts that is true and in others it is not. Even if it is true, speaking as one who has served on a local authority and knows the type of men who serve on such bodies, I say that I do not believe they would let their private interests interfere with their public duty. I say that in all fairness to people who are giving a good deal of valuable time to the service of the public
on these councils without any chance of any remuneration. They are sacrificing time that they could devote to their businesses or their pleasure, and it is a reflection upon them to suggest that they would put anything into force because it would pay them in their businesses.
What does happen in the case of the seasonal workers? It is usual for them to receive higher payment than they would receive if engaged as all-the-year-round assistants. I am glad to think that in the past, as far as the individual shopkeeper is concerned—I mean the man in charge of his own business—you rarely hear of any difficulty at all about working conditions or pay. Probably that is the reason why the trade union that caters for this class of worker has been so unsuccessful in getting anything like a big membership. There is that personal touch between employer and employed in this industry which tends to good feeling all round.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would remind the hon. Member that this Amendment only deals with the case of holiday resorts, and he seems to be arguing the question at large.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I was dealing with a point which was raised by other speakers in relation to the payment of assistants. I was trying to argue that where it is a question between an employé and an employer who is himself engaged in the business no difficulty arises. At the seasonal times extra payment is made, unless the employé is engaged for the whole year. The custom in the trade in this respect is quite different from the ordinary custom, and I can state from my own knowledge that where extra assistants have to be engaged, and where they have to work longer hours, it is usual to pay them more than the ordinary rate. Furthermore, in most of these places commission is paid on sales, and, therefore, the busier the shop the better the pay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that multiple firms are in the habit of diverting their shop assistants from provincial towns to seaside resorts during this period of four months. In the provincial towns, the assistants have established certain conditions of employ-
ment and wages, and the very act of diverting them to the seaside resorts for the seasonal period, unless some kind of protection has been arranged, merely means that the multiple firms are taking advantage of the shop assistants and robbing them of conditions previously agreed upon.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: As I am not engaged in the management of a multiple firm, I admit quite freely that I am not aware of that condition, and I accept the hon. Member's statement because I believe he has knowledge, owing to his connection with the trade union movement, of how these things are done. But I suggest that we ought not to attempt to deal with a question of that kind in a Shop Hours Bill. As far as the trade unions who deal with shop assistants are concerned, most of their membership is drawn from the staffs of the multiple firms. The reasons are obvious. I suggest that that is a matter more for the trade union concerned to take up with the employers concerned, and that we ought not to try to smuggle through a provision in a Bill such as this for dealing with it. If the hon. Member introduces a Bill specifically to deal with that question, it is possible that I and several of my colleagues, who have some knowledge of the retail trade, will be prepared to support him, just as I supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) dealing with shop assistants' hours. I repeat, however, that we ought not to introduce an alteration of this drastic nature in the law of the land—one for which we cannot quote a precedent—in a Bill of this kind, because there are big principles involved.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have a suggestion to make which may shorten the discussion. To meet the criticism that this Amendment is complicated and that it deals with wages, I would suggest the substitution of an Amendment, the effect of which would be to leave Sub-section (2, b) of the Clause as it is at present, but to add these words:
and shall be entitled to a holiday corresponding to the extra hours worked with full pay.
—dropping out all the other words in the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)
must first ask leave to withdraw his Amendment and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) can then move the Amendment which she has indicated.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) cannot move it as an Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, because the Amendment on the Paper seeks, first, to omit certain words from the Bill, whereas the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) seeks to add certain words.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am prepared to take what I conceive to be the grave risk of asking the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, after the word "order," to insert the words "and shall be entitled to a holiday corresponding to the extra hours worked with full pay."
This proposal is in harmony with the intention of the 1912 Act, which very specifically made allowance for those assistants who were deprived of a hall-holiday. This is a situation where a large number of assistants will have their hours extended, and we think it fair to give them this concession in lieu of certain privileges which will be taken from them by an extension of the hours under the closing order. I am sure the House is in sympathy with the proposal, and as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has said, it is already the practice of a great many fair employers to give compensatory holidays in respect of the Christmas and summer seasonal rushes. This addition to the Bill would tend to level up all the firms to what is rapidly becoming the practice in the trade.

Mr. GROVES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. PERRING: I support the Amendment. I have no sympathy with multiple firms, or firms of any other kind, who want to get 10 or 15 hours' extra work out of their employés in the season without any recompense. I am conscious that the concession which is being made to seaside resorts for these four months
has this effect—that in a large number of cases the seasonal hands are not employed all the year round. Where people are employed all the year round the employers ease their time in the winter months, and there is a levelling up on the whole year, but, where the employment is seasonal, the employés have no holiday in the summer because they are engaged in ministering to the wants of the people who are holidaying. Those of us who represent the ordinary retail traders, apart from the large multiple shops, ought to do nothing which would be detrimental to the fair and equitable treatment of assistants or give any ground of advantage to firms who do not practise what we conceive to be right and proper.
The words that are proposed to be added to this Clause do fit in with the suggestion that an equivalent time should be given either at the end of the season or during the season at a normal rate of pay—not necessarily overtime rate of pay. Nobody who understands business life can say that people should not have a holiday at some period of the year. I want to reinforce the idea, because these people are employed in the summer months, when everybody else is having a holiday, and then they have to have their holiday, say, in the autumn, and they have my sympathy. When we realise that there are Government servants who have six, eight and 10 weeks' holiday a year, we are not asking too much for the people with whom we are now dealing, and I shall support this Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I only rise to say one word in support of this Amendment. I think it does certainly cover all the various points which have been raised in criticism against the original Amendment, and although I had not the privilege of serving on the Committee, I was feeling rather concerned by the way the Debate was going that the shop assistants were not being thoroughly protected by leaving it entirely to the local authorities, without giving them any guidance. This Amendment gives the local authorities guidance, and I hope the House will accept it.

Sir V. HENDERSON: It is only right that I should point out that there is a difficulty about this Amendment from the administration point of view. Those
who were on the Committee will remember that I made a definite promise that between the Committee stage and the Report stage I would look into this point. I have spent a considerable time trying to find a form of words to meet it, but I have always failed, the reason being that Section 11 of the Shops Act, 1912, to which the hon. Lady has referred as a precedent, is a Clause which, from an administration point of view, refers to the shop and not to the individual. It is in no way concerned with the individual as such.

Miss BONDFIELD: It says:
Allow all his shop assistants a holiday.

Sir V. HENDERSON: That is presumably done by the shutting of the shop.

Miss BONDFIELD: The words are:
that it is the practice to allow all his shop assistants a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks in every year, and keeps affixed in his shop a notice to that effect.
Under those conditions, the half-holiday need not be given to the assistant.

Sir V. HENDERSON: If the hon. Lady reads it like that, she is entitled to do so, but I do not so read it. This particular Amendment, very much more than the provision in the Act of 1912, refers to the individual and not to the shop at all. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has already pointed out that one of the difficulties is that a number of these people go from town to country and back from country to town. If this Amendment be accepted, who is to give the holiday—the man in the town or the man in the country? In many cases the employer is a different one, and, if so, it makes the working of the proposal impossible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that whether the shop assistant left the provinces to go to a seaside resort to work for a multiple firm or a private firm makes no difference. For whomsoever the assistant worked during the seasonal period, that person, company or concern ought to provide the holiday.

Sir V. HENDERSON: If you take the summer season from May to September, the assistant would not get a holiday during that time. If the shop shuts,
and, as the hon. Member has pointed out, many of these shops do shut, the employer will have the obligation of sending the man away for a holiday at his expense after the shop is shut, before the man, possibly, goes back to another employer in another part of the country.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What actually happens, in fact, is this. Immediately the summer season is over at the seaside resorts, the man or woman, as the case may be, departs for the provinces, and as long as the persons who employ the shop assistants during the seasonal period provide the wages for the holiday, then their obligation is at an end, and whether the assistant goes for a holiday, or uses the money in any other direction, is entirely at the option of the person who has worked the longer hours.

Sir V. HENDERSON: As I read it, the assistant would be entitled to a holiday corresponding to the extra hours worked. It does not say anything about the payment of extra wages.

Miss BONDFIELD: "with full pay."

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am quite willing to leave this to the House, but I want to warn the House that I have been advised—and as I say, I have been looking at this question a good deal between the Committee stage and the Report stage—that there are administrative difficulties in the wording of this Amendment. I, myself, framed a form of words almost exactly the same, and they were open to objection. If the House pass this Amendment, it will be upon their own responsibility, and if any difficulty arises, I want it to be realised that I uttered a warning.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I want to ask the Mover of this Amendment, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, who is to be responsible for seeing that the assistants get the money? We know what a number of migrations there are, not merely from big firms, and we do not want to put something on the Statute Book which cannot be carried out.

Miss BONDFIELD: If I may be permitted to reply, I would say that I see no difficulty whatever. We have a great deal of knowledge of what goes on in the big concerns, and it is up to the shop
assistants themselves to see that it is administered. There ought to be no difficulty about it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Power to suspend operation of Act and closing orders on special occasions.)

Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out from the word "occasion" to the end of the Sub-section.
We allow the first part of the Subsection to remain on the ground that the words are to be found in the Shops (Early Closing) Act, 1920. Therefore, they do not introduce any new principle. We might, indeed, if we had not been animated by the spirit of sweet reasonableness this afternoon, have had something to say in regard to that power, but we are willing that it should remain. The second part, however, gives to the Home Secretary power to override local authorities in regard to the closing hours that they have passed in their areas. One can conceive a local authority fixing the hour at 8.30 and the Home Secretary overriding it, and making it eleven o'clock or such hour as he may think. We have considerable trust in the Home Secretary, but we feel that this is a discretion that may be abused, and an interference with the discretion of local authorities. We know that similar powers have been given before to the Home Secretary in regard, for example, to the two-shift system, and he has made many hundreds of Orders in that respect. He would have considerable power in regard to the Christmas season and other holiday seasons over an unlimited number of days.
The succeeding Sub-section limits the power of local authorities to not more than seven days in the aggregate in the year, but no such limitation obtains here. We might have a Home Secretary who favoured the views that have been expressed to-day, the views of the hon. Lady and others who have such great sympathy for the one-man shop, and who would desire to have exceptions of every kind. I am aware that when this matter was before the Committee, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said that the House of Commons would have a brake on the Home Secretary. He said
that the House of Commons existed to prevent any right hon. Gentleman from doing anything that was not entirely fair. We know, however, how futile and difficult it is for the House of Commons to interfere with these Orders. If these exceptions are multiplied, there will be confusion among customers and shopkeepers, and it is for the benefit of the shopping public that hours should be as regular and uniform as possible. Every exception that is made, and every power that is given to the Home Secretary to override local authorities, tends to weaken the Bill and the whole idea of uniform closing hours. For these reasons and others which I might name, but which I forbear to mention, because I am anxious to see this Bill passed, even in its imperfect form, I move the Amendment.

Dr. SHIELS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like, with your permission, Sir, to refer to an Amendment which is down on the Paper in my name, having a similar object, and which I suggest might, in the discretion of the Committee, either be substituted for the one which we are discussing, or be made supplementary to it—in page 4, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided always that where the provisions of a closing order made and confirmed before or after the commencement of this Act prescribe special hours of closing during the Christmas season, then such hours shall regulate the hours of closing for the shops to which the said order applies during the period in such season in which the Secretary of State suspends the operation of the provisions of this Act relating to general closing hours.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary are aware that there has been a strong feeling expressed in places where there are local orders which specifically deal with the Christmas feeling. The Master Butchers' Association of Edinburgh, and the assistants employed by them, are specially anxious that an Order which they have, under which during the Christmas season the hours are extended and limited to 9 o'clock, should not be upset by a general Order made by the Secretary of State suspending the Order for closing altogether. I am anxious that the operation of this general power by the Secretary of State should not upset any local arrangement, which is at present in
operation for the Christmas season, and which has the consent of both the employers and employed. I make these remarks in reference to my own Amendment to save time, but in the meantime I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which will omit the second part of this Clause which makes a difficulty in regard to the matter with which I have dealt.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The Departmental Committee made a number of references to this matter. Particularly, in paragraph 30 of their Report, they say:
The suspension of the operation of the Act of 1920 has left traders who had obtained Closing Orders under the Act of 1912 in doubt as to what extent (if any) such suspension affects the provisions of the Closing Orders. It was urged before us that the matter should be made clear in any new legislation, and we think that this might be done.
All that is done by the words which it is sought to leave out is to carry out that recommendation, and I hope that the House will on consideration agree to leave them in. We have had no representations about any possible hardship which might occur if these words are left in, except from one quarter, and that is the Edinburgh Master Butchers' Association. My right hon. Friend the the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he will give a definite undertaking that, so far as that particular Closing Order is concerned, he will not interfere. That is to say, he will exercise the powers vested in him under the provisions of this Clause. Under these circumstances, I think that it is right, from an administrative point of view, that we should clear up this misunderstanding, which has led to a great deal of unnecessary correspondence, and I hope that in view of the undertaking which my right hon. Friend has given, hon. Members will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BARR: I am endeavouring to save the time of the House on this Bill, and, in view of the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the assurance which he conveyed from the Secretary of State for Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Vivian Henderson——

Dr. SHIELS: My Amendment has not been called.

Mr. SPEAKER: It deals with the same point as the last Amendment.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Transactions not prevented by this Act or by Closing Orders made under the Principal Act.)

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, after the word "refreshments", to insert the words
(including table waters, sweets, chocolates, sugar confectionery, and ice cream).
This is really a drafting Amendment. It was always intended that the word "refreshments" in the Schedule should include these various articles, but it has been pointed out that, in view of the definite statement lower down in paragraph (e), referring to these particular articles, it might be held in a Court that the word "refreshments" does not include these things. For the purposes of clear drafting, we think it desirable that those words should be inserted.

Mr. MARCH: May I ask whether the word "refreshments" would not cover everything? If it is necessary to insert these things for the sake of clarity, what about tea and coffee?

Mr. JOHN JONES: And what about beer and spirits?

Mr. MARCH: Are not tea and coffee refreshments? If these things are refreshments so are tea and coffee; and if it be necessary to mention these things it is necessary to include tea and coffee.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Tea and coffee are not mentioned in paragraph (e). It has been suggested that because these details have been set out in paragraph (e) it might be ruled that the word "refreshments" here does not include these things, seeing they have been particularly specified lower down. It is purely a legal point. We are advised that it is desirable to put in these words here. If tea and coffee had been mentioned up above we should have mentioned them here, but as they had not been it was not necessary to mention them here.

Mr. J. JONES: I am in support of this Bill, but when we are talking about refreshments some of us are entitled to ask why beer and spirits should be excluded. We have a right to be recognised as consumers of spirits; the public use them and want them; and if we are asked to give special privileges as regards other things that we do not want why should we be denied the use of things that we do want?

Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill does not deal with the sale of beer and spirits.

Mr. JONES: I should like to see them included.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARR: In page 6, line 23, to leave out the words "and cooked or partly cooked tripe," and to insert instead thereof the words "that is to say, provisions which are sold to the customer hot."

Mr. BARR: This Amendment was intended to make clearer the object which, I think, the promoters have in view, and also to limit the pressure there might be on such a shop to deal in other wares. But I do not attach such great importance to it as to trouble the House with it, and therefore, with this short explanation, I do not propose to move it.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out paragraph (d).
That is the paragraph which says:—
Tobacco or matches on licensed premises during the hours during which intoxicating liquor is permitted by law to be sold on the premises.
I am moving the deletion of this paragraph, because I believe that ultimately it will have injurious effects. In every part of the country any person has the right to put up either within or outside his premises an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco or matches, and no objection is taken to the perpetuation of that system; but if we allow public houses to sell tobacco and matches across the counter it will lead to an agitation from tobacconists for the repeal of this Bill. It is grossly unfair that; people whose sole business it is to sell tobacco and other smokers' requisites should be compelled by law, and because of the vote of a, majority, to close at 8 o'clock, while
public houses are allowed to sell tobacco and matches so long as they are selling liquor. Look at the anomalies which would arise. On one side of a street in London public houses close at half-past ten, and a public house there must stop the sale of tobacco at that hour, whereas on the other side of the street a public house may be allowed to keep open until 11 o'clock and to continue selling tobacco until that hour.
So far as I can remember, only two bodies of persons showed any desire for the sale of tobacco to be permitted in public houses during these later hours. They wore the licensed victuallers in England and the Spirit Merchants' Association in Scotland. They told us there was not a large sale for tobacco, but they wanted the right to sell it because it would be a great conveniences to the public. They said they were inconvenienced by people who came in for a drink, whether of beer or of the wine of my own country, and desired to get cigarettes or something of the sort, and who, when they discovered that the publican could not supply them in the prohibited hours—that is, the tobacconists' prohibited hours—were inclined to create disturbance.
So far from there being any evidence that the general public desire this opportunity I cannot remember a single witness asking for this permission to be granted; and from my own city, where there are a large number of public houses, not one person has approached me asking my support for this proposal. If there is one trade which is alive to its interest when those interests are attacked it is the publican's trade. The publican is always alert to protect what he believes to be his interests, and while there are considerably more than 1,000 public houses in Glasgow, and I have many acquaintances and friends amongst publicans, not one of them ever approached me with the suggestion that it was desirable that they should have this privilege. Surely that shows that there has been no clamant demand for it, and it will be a crime if this House takes this step, which must inevitably lead to a demand for the repeal of the Act. It was stated by the tobacconists' trade that if these privileges were granted to public houses and to theatres there would undoubtedly be a demand on their part to keep open their shops to supply the needs of the public
in the same way. What follows? If tobacconists shops are open many of them will employ assistants, and as sure as the shops are open the hours of the assistants will be lengthened. Many tobacconists are open from eight in the morning until 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock at night. I am very much concerned about this matter, because I think the present system is wrong, and it will do much damage to the people whose interests we are seeking to protect by this Bill.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because, like the Mover, I have had no intimation from any licensed victualler in my Division to support the Clause as it stands. I have received a letter from a retail trader in East India Dock Road as follows:
This Bill is to give power for the sale of tobacco on licensed premises at a time when retail tobacconists are compelled to close by law. That is obviously a great injustice to all retail tobacconists. It is giving them extra business entirely at the expense and to the detriment of ordinary traders.
Whenever a person is looking out to open a business he chooses a spot as near as possible to some theatre, music hall, cinema, or a large public-house because he knows that at such spots there is sure to be a large number of people. When a man opens a business he is put to great expense providing the necessary articles, and if he is compelled to close his shop at a certain time I think that is a great hardship if at the same time special privileges are given to some trader next door to sell the very articles which he is prevented from selling during those particular hours. Surely the promoters of this Bill must realise that they are giving an advantage to a section of the people who remain open for other purposes, and this is being done to the detriment of those who get their living by this particular trade alone.

Mr. J. JONES: I agree with every word which has been uttered by those who have supported this Amendment, but I cannot understand why this should be made a question of setting one set of distributors against another. We were asked during the War to accept certain propositions and Regulations for War purposes, but the War has been over for some time, and yet we find that Wartime legislation is still being enforced
against everybody. You can have your cigarettes when you like. I do not smoke myself, so that I have no personal prejudice in this matter, and those who smoke themselves to death will have to face smoke hereafter. I like a glass of beer, and I think I have as much right to have my glass of beer during prohibited hours as you have to smoke cigarettes any time you like.
I would like to see compulsory legislation in this direction. If shops are open too long I think they should be obliged to conform to some Regulations under which shop assistants will not work more than eight hours a day. I can see Pussyfoot in some of these Amendments all the time, and every time I see that I shall protest against it whatever some of my comrades may think about me. If you want to have legislation of a direct character, let us have it direct. The shopkeeper wants to sell cigarettes all the hours God sends, and you are protesting against a publican selling cigarettes. All this kind of legislation by compartments makes me feel tired, and I think we ought to deal with the problem as a whole.
There is no reason why the working conditions of people employed in these shops should not be regulated on a general principle, and that principle should be carried out everywhere. You could place the duty on the local authorities, or you could have special machinery to achieve the same object. Now we are considering piffling propositions like the one under consideration which provides that you cannot buy a cigarette in a public-house, but you must go to a shopkeeper. A shopkeeper is allowed to keep open up to a certain time at night and I object to that. I think the shopkeeper ought to be open as long as the public-house, but he ought to have restrictions placed upon him in regard to the hours of labour of those he employs. This Bill restores certain customs of the people which were taken away from the people for War purposes, but now it is proposed to keep some of those War conditions perpetually in force, and some of us object to that course.
I am not going to vote against this Amendment although I dislike it. What I say is that if questions like those which are dealt with in this kind of legislation
are to be adopted as a principle some of us are going to protest. We claim the right to have some liberty in this matter. We buy cigarettes and cigars in this House. I have seen extreme Pussyfoots buying cigarettes in this House after closing time. I do not think we ought to consent to adopt this kind of legislation until we have some understanding that the whole question will be properly debated. I do not ask for these privileges for myself because I do not smoke, but if you are going to tie us down to any watertight compartments, you will not be doing the best thing for the workers, and I am sure a much more satisfactory arrangement could be adopted.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The able speech made by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) throws a searchlight on the inadequacy of this Bill, and the impossibility of dealing with this subject by a Measure of this kind. I agree with the common-sense view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Silvertown, that the only satisfactory way of dealing with this subject is by limiting the hours of shop assistants. When legislation of this kind is proposed it is necessary to make a host of exceptions which are illogical and give rise to much dissatisfaction. This Bill is a compromise. We have agreed to these exceptions and we have agreed to allow a British citizen to purchase cigarettes and a box of matches in a public-house on condition that he does not do it on temperance premises. I fully admit that this is quite illogical, but it is a little bit late in the day for the hon. Member to move this Amendment, because we have already passed Clause 3 which allows tobacconists to extend, on application, the hours at which they should remain open, and that extension was given to them as compensation for this particular exception. The Report of the Committee on this point is quite clear. They say on page 15:
We are satisfied that the inability to purchase tobacco and cigarettes after 8 p.m. has been the cause of irritation on the part of the public, and we have recommended elsewhere that the sale of tobacco should be permitted to a later hour in certain places.
In other words, we inserted this particular Clause that the hon. Member is trying to delete, in order to remove the
irritation of the public, and we then proceeded to say that, in case tobacconists should have a grievance, machinery should be set up whereby they themselves could remain open to a later hour. The whole position is completely illogical, but we have passed a Clause enabling the ordinary tobacconist to remain open longer, and there seems no reason why we should deprive the British citizen of the opportunity of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco on licensed premises. The whole Bill was a question of give and take, and this is one of the matters that we settled in the Committee and that we all agreed upon. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Sir P. GOFF: I am afraid I must reject this Amendment for the very simple reason that after very long and careful consideration, the Mackenzie Committee recommended this particular paragraph (d) for the consideration of this House. We have carried out up till now, with a little give and take, nearly all the recommendations of that Committee, and I do not feel that we can go back on this very important recommendation. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) talked about the anomaly of public-houses being closed at 10 on one side of the street, and, on the other side, being closed at 11. He was obviously referring to Oxford Street. These are anomalies which we hope to see adjusted, but they have nothing whatever to do with this Amendment, and my hon. Friends and I are quite clear that this Amendment should be rejected.

Sir F. MEYER: I want to say only a few words in amplification of what my hon. Friend has just said. I think the opposition are making a mountain out of a molehill. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and I have had many discussions on this matter. We shall never agree, but I do want to point out to any hon. Member who may have been influenced by his impassioned oration or by letters from tobacconists in the constituencies, that this is not a big or important matter. A large section of the public desires to be able to buy cigarettes and tobacco and sometimes cigars after eight o'clock. I do not think that anyone can deny that. If they do deny it, I can only point to the increasing use of the machines outside shops, increasing month by month and year by
year. If there were no demand, these machines would not be in existence and increasing.

Mr. STEWART: No one is objecting to them.

3.0 p.m.

Sir F. MEYER: Well, the demand is there and the demand is satisfied to a certain extent by the machines outside the shops. If they are allowed to be outside shops, you cannot forbid them being put in public houses and cinemas. The reason they are there is that the shop may close and the assistants go. In a public-house which is open, what difference does it make whether a man goes to a machine or whether he gets his cigarettes across the counter? There is no difference from the point of view of adding labour, but there is the irritation to the man himself that, when he asks for a packet of cigarettes or tobacco, he is told, "You cannot have it; you have to go to the machine," and perhaps he gets a particular brand of cigarettes that he does not like. He certainly cannot get an ounce of tobacco or a cigar. It is not causing a minute of extra work to anyone to supply him while the place is open, and the tobacconists are running after a false hare when they say that it is extra competition. The licensed people who came before us on the Committee said that they were prepared to have it inserted in the Bill that the quantities they sold should be limited to, say, a packet of cigarettes, one cigar or an ounce of tobacco. You could not put that into legislation, but that is how a would work out in practice. I therefore suggest that this House should disregard the Amendment, which seeks to make important what is really an unimportant matter. It is important to remember that the Committee found unanimously, or possibly with two exceptions, that this was a source of irritation to the public.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: There is a very serious danger here, inasmuch as a young man who has taken to cigarette smoking may find himself in a position where he has neglected to get his quantity before eight o'clock, and he knows that if he goes into a public-house he may be able to get a supply. I protest against anything that will induce a young man to
enter a public-house in any circumstances. If for nothing else than this, we ought to agree to the Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: I must ask the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) to realise where he is landing us. If he were not a very intelligent Member I should say that he was about the limit. He said that there is a great public demand that has to be satisfied, and that is why he and others are conducting this campaign. The hon. Member talks about a man not having the trouble to walk from a counter to a machine or not being able to get his particular brand of cigarettes. Surely he knows that, as regards the cheaper brand, such as you get from these machines, it is simply a question of what is the colour on the packet. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am not speaking of the more expensive brands appealing to the super-educated palates of the connoisseurs below the Gangway, but I do suggest that, with the average Virginia cigarettes sold from the tobacco machines, the distinction is so fine that it does not justify setting out something which will end in the tobacco shops being kept open longer. It is not a question of taking five steps from the counter to put sixpence or a shilling into a machine. The fact is that if these machines are not there and tobacco is sold on licensed premises, it opens the door to the agitation for shops to be kept open outside, and we are once again in the vicious circle of keeping shops open. When we hear speeches like that, the hon. Member is reducing the whole of his argument to an absurdity.

Mr. VARLEY: I hope that this Amendment will be resisted, and, if for no higher reason, for a purely personal one. Previous speakers have said that the demand has been satisfied, but I have not yet discovered a machine that will supply me with my customary brand of tobacco, and I must confess that I have a distaste for cigarettes. I have been able to obtain it in the public-house hitherto, and I have had the feeling all the time that I might possibly come within the purview of officers acting under the instructions of the Home Secretary. I have been wondering, while listening to the arguments in favour of this Amendment, what is the whole pur-
pose of the Shops Act. Is it really to cause the maximum amount of inconvenience to the public? Is it to deny them that which they want? Is it to restrict the legitimate profits of anyone? I had the idea, in my simplicity, that it was a method—a left-handed method, truly, but some sort of method—to restrain the avarice of those who, if it were not in existence, would keep their shop assistants all the hours that the day contains. If through the medium of the Shops Act we have secured that reasonable hours shall be granted to shop assistants, it is not right that pettifogging restrictions should be placed upon even one of us, and if, when I go to a public-house after eight o'clock at night for a drink, as I do, and shall continue to do. I am able to obtain a supply

of the weed if I find myself short of it, that is not in any sense whatever abrogating what I have considered to be the principle of the Shops Act. The sponsors of this Amendment seem to forget that, so far as public-houses are concerned, the assistants employed in them do get hours off in the middle of the day. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), if it is pressed to a Division I shall vote against it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes 79.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[3.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Daver)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Perring, Sir William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hanbury, C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holt, Captain H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. sir Leslie


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Skelton. A. N.


Buchan, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hume, Sir G. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Carver, Major W. H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Strauss, E. A.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Connolly, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. O.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Drewe, C.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mcdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, S. R.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sir Park Goff and Mr. Brocklebank.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, Walter
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Barnes. A.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr, J.
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Batey, Joseph
Charleton, H. C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Day, Harry
Lowth, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snell, Harry


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Gosling, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon, Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Remer, J. R.



Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, T.
Ritson, J.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. James


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Stewart.


Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir F. MEYER: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I feel that the Bill is of such special importance that, although a large measure of agreement has been come to on many of the principal Clauses, it should not go through without a few words from those who have been responsible to a certain extent for getting it to the stage which it has now reached. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Sir P. Goff), who brought in this Bill, has been good enough to allow me to say a few words in his place, and I very much appreciate his modesty in retiring and allowing me to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes. I think that we can definitely say that to-day we are adding something of value to the Statute Book, something which will give a great deal of pleasure to a great many classes of people in this country. I know perfectly well, and I fully realise, that this Bill, founded as it is on a report which was itself something of a compromise, cannot be satisfactory to everyone. I know that it was attacked by a certain number of leading London journals, and, I expect, by provincial ones too, and that it was stated that the compromise was not likely to be satisfactory to anyone.
I take the opposite point of view. I believe that this is a compromise which will satisfy nearly everyone and leave only a very small minority dissatisfied. It is looked upon, I believe, by the large majority of shopkeepers as a real charter.
It puts on the Statute Book, for the first time definitely and not as an annual Measure, subject to annual revision, the Eight o'clock Closure. From that point of view, I think it will be welcomed by hundreds of thousands of shop assistants and hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers. In the second place, it restores to the public in some of the later Clauses and in some of the Schedules, privileges which they have enjoyed from time immemorial in this country and which were taken away from them during the War and which they then consented to gladly, but the absence of which since the War they have felt very considerably. We have been discussing one such subject just now, and I do not wish to refer to it in any detail. I maintain—I have said it before, and I will say it again, perhaps for the last time—that if it had not been for the concessions made in the interests of the general public with regard to purchases they may make after eight o'clock, it would never have been possible to get this general measure of agreement on the Statute Book.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson), who has taken an active part in the discussions, is not in her place, because there are one or two points in her arguments to which I wish to reply. She has ventured to criticise my attitude towards this Bill and some of the arguments I have put forward. I do not resent that at all. One cannot expect every kind of praise. Since the hon. Member was good enough to say some very flattering things about my sartorial equipment in an article in a paper not long ago, I can
hardly expect her to give me the same high praise for my logical or intellectual powers. There is one serious point which I want to bring out, and which I could not bring out on any Amendment. It is the allegation that under one of these Clauses, the Clause which maintains for confectioners their present right to remain open until 9.30 on five days a week and until 10 o'clock on the late day, every assistant will be called upon to work over 100 hours in a week. I had not time then to do a little mental arithmetic, or I was not nimble enough to answer, but I have been working it out and I find that even if the facts as stated by hon. Members were accurate and these people began to work at 8.30 in the morning, a very early hour, and they continued to work until 9.30 in the evening for five days a week, and until 10 p.m. on Saturday, and they worked on Sunday until eight o'clock—they are not allowed to work after eight o'clock on Sunday—they would only be working some 78 or 79 hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "91½!"] Hon. Members challenge me. Let me put it this way. A man works in a factory from eight in the morning until 12 noon and then he takes an hour for lunch. He resumes work at one o'clock until five o'clock, amounting in all to eight hours work. Hon. Members, surely, would not say that he had been working for nine hours. Is that disputed?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: No.

Sir F. MEYER: Then may I get on with the rest of my argument?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Large numbers of shop assistants have no fixed time for meals.

Sir F. MEYER: I absolutely deny that. I deny that any employer is so harsh as not to give time for meals.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I was not allowed time for meals.

Sir F. MEYER: Statements which are brought forward and may prejudice a decision, ought to be carefully looked into.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) ought to have been a shop assistant.

Sir F. MEYER: Has the hon. and gallant Member been a shop assistant?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, nor have you.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have, and I had to get my meals when I could get them.

Sir F. MEYER—[HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!"]—I do not wish to detain the House, but I do not think that a Measure of this kind should go through its Third Reading without some few remarks being made in order that the public may realise that the House has given careful consideration to the Measure, and that a satisfactory compromise has been arrived at.

Sir W. PERRING—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]—I only wish to say a few words. After 20 years' work as a shop assistant and a shop-keeper, I am not going to allow the Third Reading of this Bill to pass without expressing satisfaction that we now have some prospect of this Measure being on the Statute Book permanently. In expressing that satisfaction I wish to thank the Home Office for the assistance they have given us, although this is only a private Bill in the ordinary sense of the term. It is almost unique in the history of legislation that so soon after a Departmental report has been presented, we have had legislation, with the prospect of that legislation being placed on the Statute Book. I had the privilege, in common with other hon. Members, of sitting on the Departmental Committee, and also on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, and it is a source of great satisfaction to me that the Departmental Committee so carefully examined the whole subject that they were able to make a report which has led so rapidly to legislation.

RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Minister of Health to make orders.)

Sir W. PERRING: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words
shall forthwith", and to insert instead thereof the word "may".
This is the first Amendment of a series of Amendments which I have felt it my duty to place on the Order Paper, with the object of securing that this Measure shall have serious consideration by Parliament. Many hon. Members may not be aware that this Bill secured a Second Reading on Wednesday evening after Eleven o'Clock without discussion. They may not have been aware that such a Bill was on the Order Paper, and it is because it went through Second Reading so rapidly that I think it is all the more important we should examine it very carefully during the Committee stage. It provides that the Minister shall make a series of orders of a general or special character forthwith. The implication in this Clause, if Parliament sanctions it, is that the Minister of Health will be expected to make these orders forthwith whether they are required or not. I hope to show that many of the Clauses of the Bill are not only unnecessary and impracticable but that some of them re-enact provisions already in the Statutes. If my Amendment is accepted it will give a discretionary power to the Minister as to whether these orders shall be issued or not, a discretion which is usually given in measures dealing with food control.

Mr. EVERARD: Perhaps I may be able to shorten the discussion on this particular Amendment. It is practically the wording of the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act, 1915. This Bill is framed on that Act, and we shall be glad to accept the proposal of the hon. Member.

Sir W. PERRING: In that case I will not detain the Committee further.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Before we part with this Amendment I think we ought to know the view of the Government. Obviously, this Bill will impose considerable duties on the Ministry of Health and the Committee, therefore, should not be without some guidance from the Department. Registration in connection with concerns of this kind is desirable. If it is necessary to register ordinary milk producers and distributors, it is also necessary to register these firms as well. I have not nearly as much sympathy as I should have had with the
Bill because of the very serious handicap under which large portions of the trade in actual milk and cream are suffering because of the operations and regulations of the Ministry of Health with regard to the use of preservatives. The position of many farmers is being seriously prejudiced. We are having to consider the closing down in the hot summer months of certain creameries to which the farmers brought much of their summer milk for conversion into cream. The very fact of the closing of the creamery means that a large proportion of the trade are forced to the use of synthetic cream. Therefore, I feel very much averse to helping anything which is intended to restrict the development of an alternative product instead of raw cream, and which is only made really necessary by the operation of restrictive regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. Before we accept any Amendment, we ought to have the official view of the Minister on the matter.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: Before we accept quite so readily the Amendment that has been moved, we should consider one point of view. There are, I understand, two matters dealt with in this Bill. One is what is known as reconstituted cream and the other is a substance which is known as synthetic cream.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we can go into that question on this Amendment, which merely says that the Minister "may" issue orders and not that he "shall" do so. There is a subsequent Amendment on which the hon. and learned Member can raise this point.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: My point was whether there should be any power to make regulations with regard to the two substances referred to in the Bill. It seems to me, with respect, that it would be impossible to consider that question, which is involved in the use of the word "may" or the word "shall", unless we considered what are the two substances with regard to which regulations can be made. Therefore, one has to consider that the Bill deals with two substances, one reconstituted cream and the other synthetic cream. Reconstituted cream apparently is something which has an analogy with cream, because it contains no fat other than milk fat,
whereas synthetic cream means a preparation in which fat other than milk fat is used. In these circumstances synthetic cream, as far as one can gather, may contain any fat other than milk fat, and therefore may be entirely foreign to the nature of cream. Yet if you give the Ministry power to make regulations with regard to this preparation, you are recognising the sale as cream of something which no one in his wildest moments would ever dream of designating as cream. It is a very serious thing to give the Ministry of Health power to make regulations for the preparation and distribution as cream of something which is not cream and something which may be title grossest possible deception of the public.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is referring now to synthetic cream. There is an Amendment later to leave out the word "synthetic". The hon. and learned Member cannot argue his point at this stage.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Of course I bow entirely to your ruling. Meanwhile I oppose the insertion of the word "may", because I think it would be very much better to say "shall not".

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I accept fully the position which the Mover of the Amendment and those of us who support him have taken in this matter, but there seems to be some question in the Committee as to whether the Amendment should be permitted. There are some of us who have some little knowledge of milk and cream, its need for purity, etc., and I think it proper that we should be very exact as to how far we should give a certain Government Department power to say, "Thou shalt" or "you may." I have in mind the inspectors representing officialdom, who come into some of our factories and deal with manufacturing processes, and who give us orders on behalf of the Department so ably presided over by the Minister of Health which are absolutely impossible of application. Accordingly I desire to give my support to this Amendment. "May" in this Bill is preferable to "shall." Some of us here have sat at the feet of Sir Watson Cheyne, who will be remembered as having addressed us on more
than one occasion on the subject of the manufacture, storage, sale and use of this vital commodity, namely, cream. It is presented to the people of this country, I am glad to say, in the cheapest form by the larger wholesale buyers, but it is sometimes exposed for sale in a manner which does not add to its purity or to the quality of or the retention of purity.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There are Amendments down to leave out nearly every paragraph in the Clause, and the question of purity must be discussed on the appropriate Amendment.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I entirely agree, Sir, and I submit I am addressing myself to she question of "may" or "shall" I am showing why we should consider these words in relation to the various uses of cream by different classes of the community. I shall at all times obey the ruling of the Chair and, with my humble experience, if the need should arise, I shall welcome your guidance, Sir. I was coming to the position in regard to cream sold in those emporiums which are patronised by the élite section of the Party above the Gangway and also those which some of we humbler members attend at luncheon time. I am seeking to emphasise the point of difference as between "may" or "shall". [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I know that those responsible for the Bill agree but the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has intimated that he may not even permit those who have presented the Bill to accept that we desire them to accept. Therefore I must give such thoughts as I have on this matter to the Committee in order that they may be rightly guided. I have referred already to the speeches which we have heard on this subject from Sir Watson Cheyne—one of the greatest medical authorities in this country—and I could quote those speeches but I want to help this Bill forward. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood is leading a group with the object of torpedoing this Measure I shall stand by the Measure. I support those who are backing the Bill in this matter and I hope the Committee will not be misled by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood but support the promoters who accept our Amendment.

Major SALMON: I submit that it is a very dangerous procedure to put upon a Government Department the duty that falls upon Members of this House of saying whether they shall or shall not make an order. It is important that the House itself should make up its mind as to whether the word "may" or the word "shall" shall be in this Clause, The method of legislation as the present day seems to be to delegate all the powers to Ministries, which, I think, is a very bad procedure. Whenever Bills come before this House we see Clauses which say that the Ministry "may" make a particular order, which, in effect, might alter the whole intention of the House, and I do hope that we shall make a move for the future not to give such powers to any particular Department, but that we should on the Floor of the House be able to argue the merits or demerits of a particular Measure, and settle once and for all whether it shall be "may" or "shall." In those circumstances, I feel that we ought to hear a little more as to the desirability of the words that are proposed in this Sub-section.
I am not permitted, I understand, to discuss the general merits of the Bill itself, but I would like to say this. It is rather unfortunate that this Bill originated in the way it did. By passing unnoticed a couple of nights ago it has not had time to receive the attention that so important a Measure deserves from the House. There are many industries in the country that are seriously concerned as to what power the Ministry may or shall have to issue certain regulations, and I do hope we shall pause before we agree to pass the word "may" or the word "shall."

Mr. SKELTON: I would suggest that it is a bad principle in a matter so important, if indeed it be of importance, to leave it entirely to the Ministry of Health whether the vital act operating executive action shall or shall not be taken. I can well understand the House coming to the conclusion that both these remarkable substances should be immediately dealt with by legislation, but if the House thinks it is a matter of importance to deal with this subject, why leave it in the hands of the Ministry of Health, and in Scotland in the hands of the Board of Health, to
take executive action? I think the House ought to make up its mind. If we are going to make a dead set against these things, we should have the courage of our convictions, and say to the Ministry, "You shall make the appropriate regulations." It seems perfectly proper that the House should delegate to a Government Department the making of the detailed arrangements in regard to a matter of which the House has approved, but for the House to leave it in the hands of a Department whether it shall do so or not seems to leave the House in this absurd position, that it cannot make up its own mind on the subject. Therefore the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" seems to be an admission on the part of the House that it refuses to make up its mind as to the importance of this.
For my part, I shall certainly support the use of the word "shall." Speaking for myself, and with a great personal friendship for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I do not believe that he knows enough about either of these substances, or that his honoured chief does, to decide whether or not these regulations should come into force. I cannot, of course, appeal to English Members to exercise the courage that I am urging, but I can appeal to my fellow Scottish Members to take, if I may say so, the bull by the horns. [Laughter.] At any rate, let us who are Scottish Members take the cow by the horns, and say that, if we are to deal with this vital matter at all, it is for us to make up our minds that, so far as Scotland is concerned, we refuse to leave it in the hands of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and to give him the power of saying whether these two vital substances shall have regulations made about them. I urge my Scottish friends to insist on this House making up its own mind.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would ask the Government to give us some reply, for we shall have something more to say about this Amendment unless we are satisfied.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The sole matter to which I have to address myself is whether the words "shall forthwith"
shall be continued in the Bill, or whether the word "may" shall be inserted. As I understand it, this is rather a matter of drafting than anything else, and I do not otherwise desire to deal with the merits of the various matters which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. This is not, of course, the occasion to discuss the merits of our preservative Regulations, but the question whether "may" or "shall" is to form part of the Bill. I shall probably on an appropriate occasion be prepared to defend these Regulations. As regards the other point which has been put to me in regard to the Regulations under this particular Clause, and whether they were necessary or desirable, that may be discussed when we reach the appropriate part of this Bill, but, on a mere drafting Amendment of this kind, I do not see any necessity to make an important statement about Government policy. On the question as to whether "may" or "shall" shall appear, the general course is to insert the word "may" in a Clause of this sort, and I should be inclined to advise the promoters of the Bill to insert the word "may," rather than the words "shall forthwith."
These are extraordinary words to put into an Act of Parliament, and it might lead to considerable argument as to the meaning of the word "forthwith." If the Minister of Health did not issue these Regulations, say, within seven days from the passing of the Bill, and he failed to comply with the terms of the Bill, it might be possible that no Regulations could be issued at all. It is certainly a very unusual thing to find in a Clause of this kind the words "shall forthwith." If, on the other hand, the word "may" were inserted, it means that some Regulations are necessary, and that it is the Minister's duty to provide suitable Regulations. I am doubtful as to what exactly would be regarded as the meaning of the phrase "shall forthwith," and on the whole I think it would be better to insert the word "may." At this stage of the Measure I do not want to deal with matters which, though important in themselves, do not arise on this question of draftsmanship.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The speech of the Minister has just made me realise what I expected was the position. I do
not think the Ministry of Health want this Bill. There is such a rapid growth in the manufacture and distribution of these two substances that it is of the greatest importance that it shall be an instruction from the House to the Minister to make Regulations for this purpose, and I therefore propose to divide the Committee in favour of retaining the words "shall forthwith."

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. PERRING: I beg to move in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words "such general or special."
I understand that it is not necessary to have those words in the Clause, and that it will be quite sufficient for the Minister to have power to make Orders. That is the reason why I am moving the deletion of these words. We must realise that this Bill proposes that the Minister should make a series of Orders dealing with something like 32 different sides of questions including manufacturing, grading, lighting and a variety of other matters. I suggest that the Minister will have very great difficulty in making Orders of any kind under this Bill, inasmuch as many of the subjects which are dealt with are already provided for in other Acts of Parliament. A good many of these subjects are provided for under the Public Health Act.
I think the Debate we have had on the previous Amendment shows how important it is that Amendments to this Bill should have been put down in order to prevent this Measure being rushed through. Had it not been for one or two Amendments put down by myself and other hon. Members we should not have known anything about the provisions of this Measure. I am determined that this Bill shall be carefully discussed. It is a Measure which has been very loosely drafted, and the promoters do not seem to have realised the importance of the words contained in the Bill which will interfere seriously with trade and business in a way which will be detrimental to the general interests of the community.

Mr. EVERARD: I accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask for some reasons why the Amendment has been accepted?

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like someone to tell us something about this Measure. An appeal was made to Scottish Members on another question to have the courage to declare their opinions, and now we are talking about something that is to be special or general and I would like to know whether it is to be general or special. It is usual to give some reasons why an Amendment is accepted. I want to know why we are getting no guidance in regard to this Bill from the Government. The hon. Member in charge of the Measure is leaving the House of Commons without any sort of guidance——

It being Four of the Clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, 3rd July.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 2nd July.